The Duhbate: Segment That's Number #2 - BFG edition

[Ed Oscuro]

Interesting near-reversal from last time.
Candy Crowley learns from the sacrifice Jim Lehrer made of his career last time (RIP buddy, we're gonna miss you, and Big Bird too).
Obama had every one of the zingers.
Romney had "That's Number One...Number Two;" hey boss, are you talkin' about dookie or the economy? Honestly, he sounded just like he did last time, but this time his tendency to chat up a very narrow sphere of topics and yet to trip over himself looked starker in comparison to Obama's improved performance.
Interesting reactions all around, I think the big O made some ground, and Romney definitely failed to capitalize on the Libya attack that Republicans have been asking him to make. It looked panicky and the moderator had to debunk him during the debate (this led to the audience breaking protocol and applausing).

A couple detailed points:
It's not a breakaway moment like the first debate was, and there were some points Romney made that I would rather Obama have made or responded to. Didn't hear what Obama had to say about Romney's "hurf some stuff about gun walking and the little bit of investigation" - sorry Romney, Rep. Daniel Issa has pretty much closed out that extremely contentious debate by now; it's yesterday's news (RIP Brian Terry) and definitely not something you can tar the Administration with. Romney mentioned China's hacking, their intellectual property thefts - those are pretty good points actually, although I think people would be gullible to think that would mark a strong point of departure for a Romney Administration. It wouldn't. Flat response anyway.

Interestingly, Romney's use of China as the boogeyman, to be labeled a currency manipulator, got a flat reaction from CNN's Unaligned Response-O-Meter; still, Obama could've mentioned that Bush didn't label them as such, and the entire business community doesn't want them to be labeled as such, for the sake of relations and also because it wouldn't spur any new measures against China. We've already put a lot of pressure on them and it's not going to let up.

edit: Added "BFG edition" to the topic title

[undamned]

I missed it. Will probably listen to it tonight while I'm working on PCB layouts
-ud

[mesh control]

I have binders full of women.

[shmuppyLove]

I have binders full of women.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hef & Hil give their thoughts about Binders Full of Women

haha, I like how one of the linked stories on the CBS coverage of "binders full of women" is a story about binders full of color photos of women from the 1940s

I totally missed this during the debate - I heard the phrase but I couldn't really pay attention to it because the whole little story was terribly awkward. I went to somebody else and said "Romney is talking about his token women right now!"

edit:

[EllertMichael]

Yeah, for me the "binders full of women" comment wasn't the part that struck me. The question was regarding equal pay in the workplace and Romney immediately starts talking about how he felt he needed to hire more women. All I could think of was his mindset was probably "yeah, we need to hire women so we can pay them less and save a buck"

[Ganelon]

Obama was trying hard to neg Romney at every opportunity but he took too many varying shots and wasn't pinpointing on a caricature to fit Romney. I think Romney maintained a superior balance of offense/defense along with persuasiveness and time management (the President needs to cut it with taking an extra minute to explain things that don't really help him nor hurt his opponent) until he got to the issue about Libya. After the Libya issue (too many technicalities in the statement to really say either candidate was correct), Romney seemed lost, and Obama found renewed confidence for a strong finish. I liked Obama emphasizing more on Romney's flip-flopping ways and deduce that the reason Obama doesn't pounce all the way on that point is to bait Romney into talking up more incriminating ideal reversals for a final stretch trap.

For China, I think the online American populace is educated enough to realize thatit's a single-edged sword against average consumers. Force up China's currency and average folks will be paying more for most goods. Plus, econ heads all know neither candidate will do anything substantial on the matter with the economy as delicate as it is now. I'd be happy to bet money against anyone who thinks I'm wrong. The issue with presidential debates is that too many points are just hyperbole meant to sound good. It's a smart move to paint China as an unfair player in order to increase your nationalism cred, but there's really no bite behind it.

As for Romney's "binders" gaffe, it's an honest mistake by itself but speaks poorly when considered as the last of a string of slightly-less-than-full-PC comments regarding differences in opportunity. Remember in the 1st debate when Romney referred to "poor kids" before hastily correcting himself to "lower-income kids"—which didn't really make sense either (it should be "kids in lower-income households")? Or when he talked about owning multiple Cadillacs? Or his wife's "you people" snub? And we haven't even mentioned the 47% comment yet. When all the gaffes reference similar aloofness, they speak to how Romney is out of touch with regular people.

Obama has been careful to avoid a similar "out of touch" labeling after his wife's "proud" blunder in the last election. That said, I'm not sure anyone can tell for sure what Romney will actually do if he's elected. For good and bad, I don't think Romney has more than a couple of strong convictions, one of which is almost certainly that hard work is necessary to succeed. I get the feeling that for him to decide what to do, he'll just perform some regression analyses on major issues and then follow the numbers as a CEO would.

Speaking of debates, I was just listening to the Gillibrand-Long NY Senate debate tonight on C-SPAN and was highly amused by the animosity and bickering between the two. If Obama and Romney really do dislike each other personally as the rumors imply, then it would be pretty interesting for Obama and Romney to have back-and-forth exchanges like in some lower level debates. I've also got to say that Kirsten Gillibrand has an amazing voice. It's impressive what millions of dollars in self-improvement and some dedicated weight loss can do.

[GaijinPunch]

A good assessment. And, agreed. Sadly, I don't think most people care that Romney is out of touch, although it bothers the fuck out of me, and is reason enough to not vote for him. For most of the Republicans before him, it was their tendency to bomb nations of brown people. Deal breaker for me, personally. We've all got our issues we adhere to.

[BulletMagnet]

That said, I'm not sure anyone can tell for sure what Romney will actually do if he's elected.

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that he's going to, at the very least, follow through on cutting federal taxes further (mostly for the very rich, deficit or no deficit) and reducing regulations/oversight for businesses along with protections/social services for everyone else: after all, such a course seems to be not just Romney's but his entire party's proposed solution to absolutely everything. I don't know, have I missed some major indication that he (or any other GOP candidate, for that matter) is even leaning slightly in any other possible direction?

[CMoon]

I have binders full of women.

I dunno, I keep 'em in the freezer myself.

[Ganelon]

I don't know, have I missed some major indication that he (or any other GOP candidate, for that matter) is even leaning slightly in any other possible direction?

It's Romney's current shift in focus, which is what disoriented Obama in the 1st debate. The problem with Romney is that everything he advocated in the Republican primaries, including reducing taxes in every way, flies in the face of what he actually did as a moderate governor of Massachusetts. Now, people do change their views over the course of their lives but for a 60+ year old man that isn't even 6 years removed from a completely different mindset? And after over 10 years of running on similar platforms? How many politicians do you know who've had a similarly dramatic ideological shift? Do we trust his words or his actions?

In the general election debates, Romney hasn't said anything more about outlawing abortions, one of his main talking points in the primaries. Is Romney planning on cutting anything major? There's no apparent plan in place. We know Romney successfully ran businesses. It's no doubt he can't cut taxes, not cut programs, and then expect to balance the budget. Something doesn't add up, and chances are pretty slim Romney has the backing to eliminate anything controversial because that's just not what he's done. Charter schools would probably fit well with Romney's personal ideals and with reducing costs, but I don't think they're a huge deal. Romney's other major claim was to cut Obamacare but then he's gone out and said he still wants people with preexisting conditions to be taken care of. How much of Obamacare is left after that? Folks also think Romney doesn't care about people but that flies in the face of his time working for the LDS church. He's not going to willingly mention that experience because his connection with Mormonism is often feared—not always without reason—but it's something to consider in contrast to his time at Bain Capital.

The mystery behind Romney's actual intentions is why Republicans found the situation so fishy and took so long to support Romney. This is the same guy who started his career working at a management consulting firm where his main responsibility was to give clients solutions and hopefully tell them what they want to hear. Is he telling the truth to the people or to his party? Well, ultimately, if he is elected President, then he'll presumably want to get re-elected, in which case I would expect for him to be beholden to the people again. If Romney does seek to continue his progressive ways, then I think he'd be great to lead the country. Unfortunately, I'm risk-averse and aren't sure I can gamble on the fact that he may just be another Bush.

[trap15]

If Romney does seek to continue his progressive ways, then I think he'd be great to lead the country. Unfortunately, I'm risk-averse and aren't sure I can gamble on the fact that he may just be another Bush.

This is exactly how I feel, and it's pretty disconcerting to have literally no idea what he actually intends to do as president...

[Ed Oscuro]

Obama was trying hard to neg Romney at every opportunity but he took too many varying shots and wasn't pinpointing on a caricature to fit Romney.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Especially the second part. Even a comical supervillain like Romney isn't one-dimensional. In any case, Romney has done a good enough job trying to make himself appear one-dimensional - both on purpose ("severely conservative," "I even like you, Jim," arguably the 47% comment) and accidentally.

I think what tripped Obama up in the first debate was a bunch of things: Romney's flurry of words, words, words; obviously terrible advice, probably not enough sleep.

This is the same guy who started his career working at a management consulting firm where his main responsibility was to give clients solutions and hopefully tell them what they want to hear.

You don't seem to know what Romney actually did at Bain or what the business was. Bain was in business for itself, and Romney directed the company in arranging takeovers of failing or vulnerable companies (often resorting to the dirty tactic of lowering their bid substantially, after outbidding everybody else and locking in their place).

Today Bain describes itself as being in all sorts of ventures, but they were primarily focused on "leveraged buyouts" during Romney's time.

[DragonInstall]

The way I see it...

Obama wins nothing will change in his term. It'll just be same o same o as the last 4 years.

Romney I think of it as a wild card. I personally think he could boost the economy better than Obama, but then again it could go the other way. I just think Obama doesn't really know what he's doing in general, but Romney hasn't really explain how he would do it better.

So what that means for me is nothing. Not going to bother voting, whoever wins then good for them. The polls show them pretty much tied so it'll be interesting to see all the rage from either party at the results.

[Ed Oscuro]

Obama wins nothing will change in his term. It'll just be same o same o as the last 4 years.

Romney I think of it as a wild card.

I read some tea leaves and they told me you're a fan of magical thinking, but not a student of history or the news.

First, the simplest answer: The Obama Presidency has not seen us "lose jobs;" it has seen a lot of jobs being made and save to counteract the most vicious economic climate since the Great Depression. When you think about what it would have looked like if we did nothing (which is what the Republicans and their lassiez-faire Chicago School economists keep clamoring for, essentially), the Bush and Obama Administrations took only reasonable measures that saved lots of jobs. Of course, the economic theory underpinning this - classic Keynesian economics - is completely foreign to the very narrow, personally-focused goals and methods of a private company like Romney's Bain Capital. If you want to think about it in terms of "leverage" - making good use of what you've got - the Republicans want not to leverage some of the great tools the Federal Government has available in times of crisis, like borrowing and even printing money. If you ran a public company like Bain without making use of the tools you've got, you'd be sacked for performing badly. I've heard some interesting policy proposals from the right, but with Romney we cannot know which of them his Administration would even consider, if any. In Washington, and in the political public at large, I think the level of economics understanding is far less, especially among the Tea Party types who mostly do not understand economics at all, and exert continuous pressure on Republican candidates to do nothing.

To be sure, there are lots of things being thrown about in the news and by the candidates that may be misleading. But the actual story about the financial crisis is one area where the Democrats are clearly the better option. They may not be perfect, but they are situated somewhere between "the ideal situation" and "the horrible reality that would have followed a victory of the Republican policy agenda in 2008." Even John McCain didn't like what he was hearing from his own party about economics (though he will conveniently forget this for the duration of the election contest).

Almost all the professional economists agreed (and, by the way, President Bush's Administration as well) that the Keynesian policy works - and that theory underlies Obama's policy about the fiscal crisis (including those the Republicans wouldn't allow through the House, although they now spew lies about Obama having a supermajority in both Houses - huh?). You probably just don't realize how many jobs were saved, and how bad things would have gotten if the hands-off Lassiez-faire crowd had their day. If anything, Obama's mistake was rather like one the Roosevelt Administration made - by pulling stimulus spending too early. The Obama Administration (and Fed Chairman Bernanke) also repeatedly underestimated how persistent the bad economy would be, leading Bernanke especially to institute policies in a stuttering fashion, rather than just keeping pressure on all the time. But do not be misled - even these minimally decent interventions caused uproars amongst the Republican fiscally hard-right faithful.

Okay, what about the politics? The only real advantage the Republicans have is that the Democrats have not been so shameful as that they would hold up important economic policies merely because they are the opposition party - the Republicans can do this because their "small government" credo gives them cover with some of their base. (This is why I laugh whenever Romney says "I got things done with a wholly Democratic state legislature in Massachusetts!" Yeah, Governor, that was because they were willing to cooperate - unlike the non-cooperative Congress which bitched and moaned when Obama didn't give into every last demand and didn't allow them to claim responsibility for his proposals.) Of course, in power a Romney Administration will not be consistent with this, but since they will be "saving the economy" (partly by inheriting the "failed" Bush and Obama policies on escaping a second Great Depression) they will be the saviors of the nation. Or, even if they do start to shift to deflationary austerity policies (like those working out so well for Europe at the moment), they will have less to fear since a Democratic Administration takes the blame for leading us relatively unscathed through the worst of the recession. HALLELUJAH!11

And all that's before we even get into the so-called "entitlements" (that people have already paid for throughout their lives) and the latest scaremongering over them. Of course, a lot of us younger folks think we won't see money from Social Security - but this is no reason to take the Republican advice and change it radically. With some small changes, we can save it for decades, just as it was saved back in the '80s in bipartisan talks between House Speaker Tip O'Neill and President Reagan (Joe Biden talked about that during his debate).

Anyway, the bottom line for everybody should be: Where is your plan, Governor Romney?

My name is FactsInstall and I improve this message.

[Udderdude]

[mesh control]

I just think Obama doesn't really know what he's doing in general, but Romney hasn't really explain how he would do it better.

This is why the the 90 minute debates are inadequate.
I want to see these two fucks argue with each other for 5 hours in a muggy rec. center, taking questions along the way.

Are two or three debates even substantial? Lincoln-Douglas debated 7 time before their election date...

[DragonInstall]

Too much propaganda.

I just can't believe anyone who says one side does everything right and the other is completely wrong and anyone who thinks they're right is wrong. That type of mentality for either side always raises a flag for me. Just sounds too Rush Limbaugh.

Either way, from where I live... I have seen the economy going down the last 4 years and all I keep hearing is Obama saying, "I've created jobs, but it's not my fault the economy is bad. It's Bush fault." Even though the White House claims jobs are going up, I don't think they're counting the people who are losing jobs also, or those who have temp jobs. At least in Cali the jobless rate has been going up. But to be fair, a big reason is probably the libs in Cali who don't know how to manage a budget and refuse to reform government unions and the pension system.

[BIL]

img

Check out Obama's right eye charging its laser. Next Episode: Look out Romney-kun! Oyabun Obama's sneaky counterattack.

[Ed Oscuro]

Too much propaganda.

I just can't believe anyone who says one side does everything right and the other is completely wrong and anyone who thinks they're right is wrong.

Well, you can kiss goodbye any pretension of having read what I wrote. I clearly wrote in there that some people who identify with the right have some interesting ideas (some lassiez-faire economists). Unfortunately, Romney has nothing. He doesn't have a plan; it's like Nixon promising to have a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam war, except Romney won't even admit his plan is a secret. It's just "the plan" and you're supposed to believe it on what - faith? He doesn't even ask for that. You're just supposed to agree with it. That's no way to run a campaign for dog catcher, let alone the Presidency.

Are facts propaganda? Maybe you're confused because I presented it as a one-sided argument. So then you could say that some of the things I said were true maybe weren't. In that case, which ones? Find them; I'll be happy to be corrected if I said something wrong. Beyond that, yes, I did "cherry pick" some examples to be the ones relevant to this discussion. Clearly, there are some things the Republicans assert that are different from the Democrats (in general) that I find intriguing or at least sympathetic - not many, unfortunately. The parties are quite similar on many points, and I don't count being the same as the other guys as a reason to vote for anybody. They need to be not just the same, but have enough important points in their favor! We aren't talking about those things at the moment, though we could (and I would say the very few things I like from the Republicans - maybe one or two things, at a stretch - do not change the balance in favor of the Republicans, or even come close).

In this discussion, the Republican meta-narrative that the President is weak and can't get anything done is simply wrong. The Republicans in Congress have been holding up his agenda at every opportunity, and I think it's opportunistic.

You have simply no idea what you're talking about when you say that Romney would do it better, because you're just appealing to the "idea" and obviously using the talking points as your justification. Or maybe how he looks, or something else. Forget all that shit about your "suspicions," and look at the record. I'm trying to use the actual record - despite the lies about it, there still is some evidence that is trustworthy, and certainly more accurate and thoughtfully presented than what a candidate tripping over his tongue manages to get out during the debate - to figure out what's true. When given the choice between what Romney spews in the heat of the moment (contradicting truth and even his own party when it's convenient), and looking at what the record and independent analysts say, I'll go with the impartial evidence every time.

mesh control: A longer debate would just give the candidates more time to fall back on their talking points. How long does Romney need to keep saying "well you better BELIEVE the math adds up?" It doesn't matter! We've already got the story, unfortunately. The best format in practice would probably be one more like the town hall or the VP debate, where you have a moderator who isn't afraid to do some fact-checking or to call the candidates out when they avoid the question (as both the previous moderators did).

[DragonInstall]

Serious question... what left wing news site do you get your information from. You sound just like them, or I should say sound like any party new sites.

If I were to go to a right wing site it would say the exact opposite from what you're saying. I don't pick sides on what lies politicians spew out or what random posters who get facts from their favorite sites spew out. From what me and many others in California experienced, is slower economic growth, and more jobs and business being lost. So naturally I don't think his plan is working.

As for him being weak because of the Republicans... ok then what? Voting for him again will some how change and he'll start getting things done? I just don't see him going for 4 more years will bring about change. Didn't he lose the house to the Republicans? Aren't the polling showing Romney and Obama are pretty much tied?

This is why politics is a joke. Fact checking is pointless also, because there are always many different places claiming different things as fact. People will just latch onto whatever "Fact" appeals to their base.

No offense, but aren't you just a nobody like everyone else? I don't see how you can know how things will be in the future... if so maybe you should apply to be Obama's economic adviser so things can be changed for the better.

[trap15]

[Udderdude]

Awwwww yeah.

[BulletMagnet]

As for him being weak because of the Republicans... ok then what? Voting for him again will some how change and he'll start getting things done?

It'll at least send a message to the obstructionist Republicans that we're really sick and tired of their self-serving crap.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Pelosi had made a statement in 2006 like McConnell did in 2010 her head would be on the end of a pike right now.

[GaijinPunch]

As for him being weak because of the Republicans... ok then what? Voting for him again will some how change and he'll start getting things done?

Congressmen have elections too. They don't stay there forever.

[Aliquantic]

This is why politics is a joke. Fact checking is pointless also, because there are always many different places claiming different things as fact. People will just latch onto whatever "Fact" appeals to their base.

Truth doesn't exist, everything is relative, ignorance is strength.

I'll just stick with http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ personally.

[Ganelon]

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Especially the second part. Even a comical supervillain like Romney isn't one-dimensional.

It is a bad thing when trying to make a point. A person is never one-dimensional but when trying to convince someone, it's ideal to focus on a couple of major points so the audience can remember them. Or there has to be some theme. One of Romney's effective main themes against Obama is that the latter is a well-meaning, likeable guy who just doesn't have the solutions. Romney's worst primary poll numbers came when his rivals attacked him for being a flip-flopper on every question.

You don't seem to know what Romney actually did at Bain or what the business was. Bain was in business for itself, and Romney directed the company in arranging takeovers of failing or vulnerable companies (often resorting to the dirty tactic of lowering their bid substantially, after outbidding everybody else and locking in their place).

You don't seem to know Romney's work history. There's a big difference between Bain & Company and Bain Capital, the private equity offshoot. And before Bain & Company, Romney was at BCG like all the other original Bain employees. That was a whole decade of management consulting before Romney started the "Bain" that everyone seems to talk about nowadays.

I'm trying to use the actual record - despite the lies about it, there still is some evidence that is trustworthy, and certainly more accurate and thoughtfully presented than what a candidate tripping over his tongue manages to get out during the debate - to figure out what's true.

I agree with looking at what the candidates do rather than what they say. That's why I'm confused why you're using Romney's talking points compared to Obama's record. The apples-to-apples comparison would be to look at the records of both candidates.

[CMoon]

I just think Obama doesn't really know what he's doing in general, but Romney hasn't really explain how he would do it better.

This is why the the 90 minute debates are inadequate.
I want to see these two fucks argue with each other for 5 hours in a muggy rec. center, taking questions along the way.

Are two or three debates even substantial? Lincoln-Douglas debated 7 time before their election date...

This is a really good point. Seriously, two minutes to discuss an idea? Fuck! When was the last time you had a good ol' satisfying shit take less than 2 minutes? Screw this sound-bite culture. Mesh is totally right on this one, but everyone knows short-attention span USpedA both wouldn't have the patience for it, and certainly wouldn't be able to understand it. Democracy is total bullshit when everyone is undereducated and mentally fucked up on growth hormones and caffeine (never mind fetal alcohol syndrome). And really, when these guys get into office, can they even make the changes they say they want to?

Hell, its all a fucking circus. My take is the less time you waste thinking about it the better, because every bit of it is just lies anyway. Sure, one sack of shit is maybe better than another, but I'm not jumping down the outhouse hole to figure out what's going on down there.

[ED-057]

This is why the the 90 minute debates are inadequate.
I want to see these two fucks argue with each other for 5 hours in a muggy rec. center, taking questions along the way.

This is a really good point. Seriously, two minutes to discuss an idea? Fuck!

Well, I`m not sure if giving them more time would help that much considering that there are apparently very few specific policy positions which they will dare to state openly. Almost all of what they are saying is meaningless filler.

Moderator: What would you consider to be your favorite color and why? Candidate A, you may answer first. You have two minutes.

Candidate A: Thank you. Well, I would like to start by saying that I am proud to live in a country where there are a wide range of colors. Some of them are bright and vibrant, but then others more subtle. And sometimes that's important. But like I said, here in America, for instance, our flag has three distinct colors. Now, there are a lot of other countries in the world which don't have that many colors on their flag. And our flag is the one that we planted on the moon, when we put the first man on the moon. It is the flag that our brave men and women in the armed services salute and pledge allegiance to. It is the flag...

Moderator: Candidate A you are almost out of time, please finish up your point quickly if you could.

Candidate A: OK, well there is another thing that I think should be mentioned here, and that is that we need more jobs. Also, terrorism is bad. Thank you.

Moderator: Candidate a?

Candidate a: Ladies and gentlemen, I strongly disagree with Candidate A and I'll tell you why. What he has failed to realize is that some Americans are color blind. You can't just take colors like red, orange, yellow, and green for granted. In fact, last week I visited a town in Ohio, really nice town by the way, and the weather is beautiful there this time of year. But, I spoke to a lot of people who live there, including a woman who had a young son, I think he was about seven years old. Maybe eight. Probably. This woman told me that, in this town, their fire department had a number of bright red fire engines. However recently, two of the red fire engines had been replaced by green fire engines. Now, a person who was color blind might not even be able to distinguish between red and green fire engines. I know that when I was growing up all of the fire engines in my home town were red. I'm not sure why fire engines are being painted green these days, and I'm not sure if green fire engines are right for America...

[Ed Oscuro]

This post custom generated for DragonInstall!

Serious question... what left wing news site do you get your information from.

Do you have something in particular you don't believe? It'd be more useful to go over something you don't believe than just sitting here with me saying things and you not believing them because you're too lazy to (and apparently too stupid to realize you ought to) look them up yourself.

Fact checking is pointless also, because there are always many different places claiming different things as fact.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while, congratulations! "FACTS ARE JUST OPINIONS AND WHEN PEOPLE DISAGREE ABOUT FACTS THAT MEANS THERE ARE NO FACTS!!1"

Claim A: 2+2 = 4, FACT!
Claim B: 2+3 = 4, FACT ALSO!
Can't we tell which is true or not? Especially when you can, y'know, look at the claims and logic being made for yourself. I have an open invitation to everybody that if they don't believe some "fact checking" that I will do a FAIR & BALANCED (TM and AWW RITES RESERVED FOXY MOXIE) fact checking to their liking, or their money back!

Obviously, the fact checkers sometimes add a "verdict" about whether something is "true but misleading" or otherwise add some opinion to what they're saying. By the way, the fact checkers often end up watering things down in a way that helps the Republicans; I wouldn't mind seeing a study about how the fact checkers interpret things. However, I do recall that recently Time Magazine stated that they found that the Obama and Romney campaigns had about the same number of misleading statements, of any type - but they also found that the most obvious distortions (i.e. the whoppers) were Republican. Some people have suggested that the Democrats are just more suave about their lying.

That may be so (sometimes), but here's the kicker: If two people tell you two different things, both somewhat distorting the truth, wouldn't you believe the person whose story is closest to the truth? We're talking partially about things which are, as you point out, opinion. If Bob spits on the sidewalk, who would you think more likely to steer you catastrophically wrong: Joe who says "Bob spat on the sidewalk and flicked a booger at you because he hates you," or Rob who says "I just found out that Bob is Jack the Ripper! Blood, BLOOD EVERYWHERE!!1 Bob hates prostitutes because they remind him of his mother!" This is exaggerated, but I'm trying to make the point that if you have two lies to choose from (and frankly a lot of the supposed Democratic "lies" are just inconveniently truthful), don't support the one that's farther from the truth. And about fact-checkers: If you don't agree with the opinionated part of their judgments, it's usually quite easy to separate those from the facts. I take issue with things they say (about both parties) all the time.

If anybody catches the Democrats lying, obviously I won't support it or try to spin it.

No offense, but aren't you just a nobody like everyone else?

Would it be better if I was a "somebody" who lied to you? In logic that's called the appeal to authority and it's bad because it uses a person's name or title instead of the truth. You oughtn't believe somebody just because they are a smooth talker or because they wear a nice tie. Of course that's offensive, why would you think otherwise?

As for him being weak because of the Republicans... ok then what? Voting for him again will some how change and he'll start getting things done?

Do you think that Romney wouldn't have the same problem if Democrats wanted to stick it to him, like the Republicans did to Obama even though he spent a lot of time attempting to work with them? We know that's not the case - Romney himself likes to point out that "he worked with the Democrats" but that required Democrats to work with him (and he also was promising a much more moderate platform when he was Governor in Massachusetts, too). This point is about the parties in general - the Democrats, as I said, are generally more willing to work on economic issues and regulation to get things done. For all the talk about how Democrats want abortion and the like as well, you will probably still find (even after the increased polarization of late) more Democrats willing to compromise on those issues too. There has been an increased tendency for voters to vote in polarized, less moderate candidates from both parties, partly as a result of gerrymandering giving candidates increasingly "safe" (aka ideologically "purified") districts.

And, again, you're basing this off the incorrect belief that Obama didn't get anything done. We didn't fall into another Great Depression because of the work he and the previous Administrations did to stop that from happening. He got Detroit a bailout that worked - and hasn't cost the taxpayers anything, last time I checked; he got a system in place where medical insurance is affordable, and he did quite a few other things.