Very damaging to the cause IMO.

but I agree he cannot do that! No more Mr. Nice Guy. That strategy doesn't work.

Especially on touchy, really important shit like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Some people may just get the wrong idea and besides, it may come back in a soundbyte ad.

Just say no.

Amen. It's OK for Willard to agree with HIM though.

just not the president.

I do believe people were expecting President Obama to call Romney on it, but he kept letting Romney repeat those lies. When Romney gave him an opening about an accountant, I thought sure President Obama would come back with those tax returns and Romney evading taxes with offshore investments in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. I was scratching my head, because president Obama was AWOL.

When Romney mentioned no sources about his tax cuts, the President was stating a source on the campaign trail, You know, the biggest mystery of all is President Obama not talking about the Jobs Recovery Act with Infrastructure Jobs, the Republican Congress and Paul Ryan is holding hostage? Especially when Mitt Romney claims President Obama didn't propose a Jobs Act. The media certainly is not calling Romney on it. Romney will be exposed to yet another lie if Obama would just defend his record. Just why does he think the Winston Salem Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer or Lincoln paper supports him?

The unemployment rate is 7.8. Just what will the numbers be if the Republicans didn't hold up the Jobs Act? When the Republicans claimed the Stimulus Bill didn't create Jobs, why doesn't President Obama cite the sources and number of jobs the Stimulus created? President Clinton can't keep explaining things for him. President Obama actually has a darn good record.

He also has specifics for the future. Just ending the War in Afghanistan is a specific to wards the deficit. The Bush tax cuts is a specific to wards bringing down the deficit. Passing the Jobs Act, does help the economy. That is why President Clinton supporters him. He should also ask the people to send him a Congress to wards ending gridlock. The Republicans are the problem.

Welcome to DU, John2

There's a difference between being reasonable, and trying to sound reasonable.

The President is attempting now to capture voters in he middle. He has his base all sewed up. If he is completely divisive at this debate, if he doesn't cede some middle ground, it will hurt him more than help. Take the time to read Lanny Davis' piece and see if you agree.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/lanny-davis/262037-advice-to-president-obama-for-tuesday-nights-debate

He tells you everything you need to know about where he's coming from in his first point:

Lanny Davis is one of the more wrongheaded motherfuckers you can find without actually going to the RNC or kicking with the Teabaggers.

Lanny fucking Davis.

One is seldom in greater danger of being wrong and/or selling out the American people than when agrees with fucking Lanny Davis.

Awesome name drop there. Douchebag can out Turdway Rahm without breaking a sweat.

What does Dick Morris have to say on the subject?

I thought Lanny Davis and similar people supporting Hillary were what allowed Obama to defeat her in '08. Now Obama is supposed to listen to this tool? No thanks, nothing but bad advice, empty centrism, and endless, soulless triangulation. You stand for something or you deserve to lose, IMO.

mode at his own peril. He can make his points without being aggressive. That is what I think Lanny Davis was saying.

... bright right there. I understand your point, but he should not say I agree with Mitt Romney.

Edited to be more clearer

he became a nonentity long time ago within the democratic party, from his days as a DLC hack to selling us out during the 2008 campaign, well he tried to, unsuccessfully.

Most of us that have been here longer know who Lanny Davis is, I didn't realize he is still around, I thought he pissed off to retirement, but I'm wrong.

Another one -- I hope he doesn't downplay his job performance, no self-deprecating comments please.

Do the same as Biden did w/Ryan.

Put as MUCH daylight as possible between you and your opponent.

Don't muddy anything or voters might think, "Ah, they're all the same anyways"

anyway!"

is what Obama does. At least to their face. It's part of his brilliantawesomechessgrandmasterly strategy. It also (this is purely a coincidence, of course) minimizes the potential for conflict.

Joe Biden agreed with Paul Ryan on the increment of unemployment in Scranton, Pennsylvania, but went on to expose him on his lies and attempt in down playing the economic recovery, furthermore, I don't think challenging your opponent in a debate is a potential for conflict, I believe majority of Americans will see it as a president fighting on their behalf.

for, uhhh, we'll call it "Choosing your battles wisely, very, very, very wisely." And I agree with you about what Americans will see conflict as being. The question is, does Obama, and will he ever see challenging conflict as anything other than something to be avoided at all costs. The only reason this is being discussed now is that he refused, when given an opportunity to do so in front of an audience of 70+ million, to draw a clear distinction between himself and one of the most loathsome political figures to come on the scene in many decades. That's, frankly, terrifying to me.

for the last debate, but here is how one can look at the debate tomorrow, Mitt Romney has told so many lies that he himself can't remember what lies he has told, having that in mind you will have to set him up with open ended answers by which he will definitely jump on it to prove the opposite forgetting what he had said before, now you remind him of what he said in the past by pointing out all his distortion and lies with facts.

In the words of British Parliamentarians when they agree with a statement spoken in the House of Commons, HEAR! HEAR!

I understand your point but honesty is still an important attribute to display. And under the right conditions, agreement can be devastating.

That conciliatory tone has no place in these debates. rMoney should not be legitimized by Obama in any way.

while you may "agree" with something he says today, you can bet he will change his mind tomorrow or his halfwit spin team will post a release within hours "correcting" what mittens actually meant.

He's nothing but a flimflam man.

the president needs to shed light on Mitt Romney's team releasing rebuttals every time he says something the GOP does not agree with.

He's going to do it again.

The president has done an excellent job in setting him up, Mitt has no where to run to imo, now all the president has to do is to take him apart on all the lies Mitt has told, whenever he says something inaccurate, he calls him out on it and then explain why Mitt is totally wrong with his ideologue.

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2012, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Hopefully Obama will stop playing by Mitt's non-rules and just say what needs to be done and it'll flip where Mitt is agreeing with him.

the president should respond by saying "why does Mitt's handlers always come out the next day to walk back what Mitt has said the previous day"

If he believes in facts and has not written off 47% of the American people why is it he has not released his complete tax returns instead of releasing one year for the American people, that is not an example of an honest president the American people are looking for in their leader. The American people wants their leader to be straight with them, they do not want a leader whose loyalty lies elsewhere and therefore cannot be straight with the American people.

Those were some very bad moments in the last debate. WTF was he thinking?

when talking about the wealthy paying their fair share. You are nowhere near the wealth of Mitt Romney.

"Gov. Romney and I believe" is not a winning sentence.