Kevin Graham wrote:Like most candidates going up against an incumbent, Romney knows he can't hope to win unless he can convince people that they'd had it really bad the last four years.
which has not been a difficult argument...even Obama conceded in Debate2 that the past 4 years were tough...even Biden noted that the past 4 years had "buried" the middle class. Romney effectively had to do very little to convince anyone.
Kevin Graham wrote:Whether this is true or not doesn't phase him, as he is in this for his own glory. So he focuses on all the possible negatives while ignoring the clear positives.
this is true for either candidate and is the inevitable result of an adversarial system. It is a rather academic necessity. I recall a professor in an architecture studio announcing that the purpose of a critique was not to solely pat you on the back because little will come of that...the negatives must be illuminated.
Kevin Graham wrote: I don't think Obama needs to explain why he should remain President.
nice promotion for being an informed voter, but it seems that many people disagree with your notion....myself included.
Kevin Graham wrote: Most Americans know that he has been President since 2009 and they also know that hyper-inflation hasn't even begun to occur as predicted. They also know that the economy has improved, contrary to Right Wing predictions, and they also know that Obama is hardly the Communist Dictator as predicted either. So at this point all this idiotic fear mongering about Obama the socialist is old news that has been disproved by recent history.
the economy being improved might be hard sell to those who "know" they are unemployed.
the communist dictator might be a hard sell to those who "know" they will be punished if they do not buy healthcare, or expect that military detention has a time limit, or that freedom of speech also applies to making fun of Muslims.
Kevin Graham wrote:In the end it all boils down to one question: Are we on the right track after four years? I think the answer is an obvious yes.
the answer is an obvious no.
Kevin Graham wrote:The economy has turned around in the right direction, even though the velocity of its progress can be disappointing at times.
you are trying to sell a broken clock under the guise that it is correct at least twice a day. The economy is not in the right direction, that is why its velocity is so disappointing, it is being impeded by Obama's policies.
Kevin Graham wrote:Despite all the spin doctoring from the Right about the "real" rate of employment, the unemployment rate is down nearly three percentage points from what it was in late 2009. Job creation in the private sector is on the upswing, contrary to Right Wing predictions of 2008-2010. The stock market has literally doubled since Obama has been in office, which is what FOX News once called the best indicator of an improving economy.
the Dow has only grown 60% since Obama. which is good, but it is hardly the best indicator. You can not simply cherry pick Fox news for credibility...simply because Fox never has had any cherries.
Kevin Graham wrote: Manufacturing jobs are up, etc. These are positives that the Right Wing media tries to hide from the public because they know that when all the facts are known, there is really no intelligent reason to vote for Romney based on the economic concerns. In fact, there is plenty reason to avoid him, as he is essentially Bush 2.0.
the unemployment rate seems to contradict your hallucination. Besides, incomes has not kept pace with inflation...gas is more expensive, food is more expensive, etc...
State and local governments have had to gut their staff due to funding and this has way offset the timid private sector growth.
The reality is that when Obama took office there were 2.7 million unemployed...today there are more than 5 million....that fact alone neuters your conspiracy theories.
Kevin Graham wrote:The beauty of Obama's performance was that he didn't let Romney's lies go unchallenged this time. I don't know how anyone can say it was a tie, unless you're grading them on the number of times they tried to become the alpha dog in the debate. The reason Obama won is because he had truth on his side, and he used it to slam Romney to the ground on a number of occasions.
so, when Obama lied about calling the embassy attack a terrorist attack, or when he ignored the fast and furious, or when he claimed Romney invested in China, etc. these are examples of the truth in your eyes.....?
Kevin Graham wrote: I just loved the way the moderator corrected the old lie about how Obama never called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack, and the crowd began to applause when that happened, which was HUGE for Obama because these kinds of reactions have an effect on the broader audience.
and yet we quickly learn that she, like Obama, were wrong.
Kevin Graham wrote:I know they were supposed to avoid applause, but I'm glad they did it. It just showed how excited they were that finally see we were getting to the bottom of something. No more he said/ he said BS. A claim was fact-checked on the fly and Romney looked like a babbling idiot after that. I mean when you're lying so badly that the moderator has to step in and correct you... WOW.
yes, WOW...how easily you were impressed with style over substance, with a lie over the truth.....ironic.
Kevin Graham wrote:I loved the way Obama responded to Romney by telling him to "keep going" when he was asking him that question. It was a great technique of giving your opponent enough rope so he could go hang himself with it, and it worked beautifully.
obviously you posted this before you actually learned the truth....typical Obama supporter i suppose, they love a good show!