DOWNLOADS: (8)

PLAYS: (45)

Embed

During last night's debate, Mitt Romney made a big deal out of how he gave a rat's @ss about people with pre-existing conditions. Only, he doesn't really care much at all. Not in the least.

After the debate, his campaign clarified his remarks about what would happen to those with pre-existing conditions:

“With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, referring to existing laws which require insurance companies to sell coverage to people who already have insurance, or within 90 days of losing their employer coverage.

In other words, screw you people with pre-existing conditions. You'd better hope you live in a state where they're covered and have the money to pay for it.

President Obama had a different idea on that:

“There are two ways of dealing with our health care crisis. One is to simply leave a whole bunch of people uninsured and let them fend for themselves, to let businesses figure out how long they can continue to pay premiums until finally they just give up, and their workers are no longer getting insured, and that's been the trend line. 

Or, alternatively, we can figure out, how do we make the cost of care more effective? And there are ways of doing it.”

Also, a PS to Mitt Romney. The coverage of kids up to age 26 was not done before Obamacare was passed. Yes. Obamacare did that. Not that facts matter or anything, except yes, they really do.

Of course, the pundits were all abuzz over this, right? Yeah...in my dreams maybe.

DOWNLOADS: (19)

PLAYS: (101)

Embed

Some pundits are bemused at Mitt Romney remark about financial regulation at last night's debate.

Regulation is essential. You can't have a free market work if you don't have regulation. As a businessperson, I had to have -- I need to know the regulations. I needed them there. You couldn't have people opening up banks in their -- in their garage and making loans. I mean, you have to have regulations so that you can have an economy work. Every free economy has good regulation. At the same time, regulation can become excessive.

But this is almost exactly what he said at the Republican debate in January.

Markets have to have regulation to work. You can`t have everybody open a bank in their garage. You have to have regulation, but it`s got to be up to date. And they didn`t have capital requirements put in place for the different classes of assets banks had. They also didn`t have regulation properly put in place for mortgage lenders. Derivatives weren`t being regulated. You need to have regulation that`s up to date. They had old regulation, burdensome. Then they passed Dodd-Frank, which the Speaker is absolutely right. It has made it almost impossible for community banks.

This is smart positioning: I'm not against all financial regulations, I'm against Obama's regulations. And Obama's response wasn't effective at all, because his punchline "Does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of Wall Street?" doesn't directly answer Romney's position.

The only proper rebuttal here was to say that Romney just isn't credible when he touts the importance of regulation -- because he spends most of his time and energy saying how he's going to get rid of them.

"Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country, but they will struggle to succeed if taxes and regulations are too burdensome or if a government in Washington does its best to stifle them. Mitt will pursue comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans, and he will cut back on the red tape that drives up costs and discourages hiring."

And:

"As president, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and regulation, and bring much-needed reforms to Medicare and Social Security."

Indeed, he has an entire section of his campaign website that's dedicated to repealing regulations.

"Multiple factors contribute to America’s faltering performance. But a major part of the problem over successive presidencies, and one that the Obama administration has sharply exacerbated, is the regulatory burden on the economy. Regulations function as a hidden tax on Americans, with the federal government’s own Small Business Administration placing the price tag at $1.75 trillion annually—much higher than the entire burden of individual and corporate income taxes combined."

Unforced error by Team Obama.

DOWNLOADS: (32)

PLAYS: (341)

Embed

Ann Coulter visited Fox & Friends this morning to offer her special brand of insight into the presidential debate last night. But Coulter never seems to pass up an opportunity for an inflammatory, attention-getting sound bite, no matter how childish or mean-spirited. And it's always welcome on Fox News. Today’s Coulterism was, "You could see at the end of that debate, (Obama) knew that, anniversary or not, Michelle wanted to go home with Mitt."

Coulter was dressed as though she were off to a cocktail party – at 7:30 in the morning. She offered up her latest nugget after being asked, “How much did Romney win and how much did the president lose?” She answered that it was “some of both.” Then she added,

(Obama) was very, very bad last night. He looked depressed, he looked anemic. Those big ears poking out… You could see at the end of that debate, he knew that anniversary or not, Michelle wanted to go home with Mitt.

To the credit of the curvy couch crew, the joke fell somewhat flat, though co-host Gretchen Carlson emitted what sounded like a half-chuckle, half-guffaw. But can you imagine the right-wing hissy fit if, say, Michael Moore said such a thing about Ann Romney?

I don’t ordinarily like to give Coulter the kind of attention she hounds after with these kinds of remarks. But I think it’s important to recognize and highlight that this is the kind of discourse that is routinely offered on Fox News. Even if it’s not fully appreciated by the hosts, it gets a friendly platform and without challenge.

It’s a safe bet Coulter will be back on Fox News soon and once again presented as a credible, mainstream analyst.

DOWNLOADS: (63)

PLAYS: (466)

Embed

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney began his first face-to-face debate with President Barack Obama by comparing the commander in chief to a boy who often said "something that isn't always true."

After Obama asserted that Romney's budget could not cut $5 trillion in taxes and raise military spending by $2 trillion and still expect to cut the deficit, the Republican candidate accused the president of not telling the truth.

"Virtually everything he said about my tax plan is inaccurate," the former Massachusetts governor quipped. "What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. No economist can say Mitt Romney's plan adds $5 trillion."

"Number two, I won't reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, and it's not the case."

Romney added: "Look, I have five boys, I'm used to people saying something that isn't always true and keep on saying it hoping ultimately I will believe it."

enlarge

There's a reason that Romney's losing the black vote 94-0.

Keep it up, wingnuts.

DOWNLOADS: (159)

PLAYS: (2169)

Embed

Stephen Colbert had a bit of fun this Tuesday night with all of the hype, the raising or lowering of expectations for the first presidential debate by the talking heads in the media and pundits alike, and with Romney's promise to deliver a few "zingers."

DOWNLOADS: (58)

PLAYS: (718)

Embed

Mitt Romney, on how he would cut the budget and raise taxes on no one while dropping the deficit by $5 trillion dollars during the debate tonight. Hint: Big Bird has to die.

"I will eliminate all programs by this test if they do not pass it. Is the program so critical is it is worth borrowing from China to pay for it? Obamacare is on my list. I use the term with all respect. I will get rid of that. I will stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS. I like Big Bird. I cannot keep spending money to borrow from China to pay for it."

I really would have liked a retort here about how Mitt Romney had no problem borrowing from German investors to strip companies of their assets and then send the jobs to China. That would have made me smile a little bit, anyway. But alas, this answer was only beginning and by the time Mitt finished four or so minutes later, Big Bird was already embalmed and in his big bird grave, buried by the sheer number of lies Mitt Romney piled up in a short period of time.

And so went the debate, the one pundits were saying had to be a "game-changer" for Mitt Romney. I see a lot of comments around that suggest it was, at least on first blush. At least it was game-changing in the sense that it might boost Romney's poll numbers, assuming one has no use for the truth, because well, Mitt lied. A lot.

As I watched Romney tonight, I saw the guy who made those completely candid 47 percent remarks. When he called President Obama a liar straight up during the debate, I don't think that played especially well. To be sure, Mitt was well-practiced and ready, but I didn't find him pleasant or especially appealing. I found him to be exactly like that dude talking to billionaires about people being victims and dependent on government before sitting down to the cheesecake dessert with his fellow billionaires.

I thought President Obama could have done better, for sure. He missed some key opportunities to be sharper about Obamacare, but he did do a good job of showing Romney's Medicare lies to be what they are.

In the end, people are going to remember that Mitt's down with killing off Big Bird and PBS so he can do his Mitt magic with numbers that just don't add up, no matter how it's spun.

Jim Lehrer kept saying the point of this debate was to define their differences. Unfortunately, the biggest difference didn't come through: one was telling the truth and one wasn't.

In the end, Big Bird's life still hangs in the balance, and Jim Lehrer should never, ever be allowed to moderate anything even resembling a debate ever again.

enlarge

Dogs against Romney: Romney's dog abuse is a metaphor for his whole career.

PERRspectives: Bain Capital's parasitism targets the health-care industry.

Smartypants: How to avoid occupying any moral high ground.

Goblinbooks: The Republicans have finally noticed we have a Constitution, but they don't quite understand it yet.

Blog round-up by Infidel753. Tips to mbru [at] crooksandliars [dot] com.

DOWNLOADS: (129)

PLAYS: (1483)

Embed

President Barack Obama on Wednesday took a jab at Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, joking that the GOP hopeful must have refused to release details about his policies because they were "too good."

During the first 2012 presidential debate in Colorado, Obama noted that Romney had vowed to repeal health care reform but not given any details about what would take its place.

"But when Gov. Romney says he'll replace it with something, but can't detail how it will be, in fact, replaced — and the reason he set up the system he did in Massachusetts was because there isn't a better way of dealing with the preexisting conditions problem," the president explained. "He says he will close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan — that how it will be paid for, we don't know the details. He says that he's going to replace Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reform, but we don't know exactly which ones, he won't tell us. He now says he'll replace Obamacare — and ensure all the good things in it will be in there — and you don't have to worry."

"And at some point I think the American people have to ask themselves: Is the reason that Gov. Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret, because they are too good?" Obama asked. "Is it because that somehow middle class families will benefit too much from them?"

"No, the reason is because when we reform Wall Street, when we tackle the problem of preexisting conditions, then, you know, these are tough problems and we have to make choices. And the choices we have made have been ones that are ultimately benefiting middle class families across the country."

enlarge

Credit: Blue Gal

I wish SNL's Stefon were a Presidential Debate moderator, so we could avoid all this "should the moderator be fact-checker?" mumbo jumbo.

Open thread below....