Tom Cordle

Tom Cordle
Beeffee, Tennessee, CSA
June 16
There is your truth ... there is my truth ... and there is everything between. That leads to the better question: Is there an Everlasting Truth? I submit there is only the Everlasting Quest for the truth. __________________________________ I believe that in essence We are God. That is to say, humankind, for all it's faults, has power over Good and Evil. As the Eden Tale intimates, humans alone, in all Creation, have "eaten" from the the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; and thus humans alone, in all Creation, have the ability and responsibility to choose between the two. Thus, each of us is in essence a god, and the Sum of us, through all generations past, present and future is God. By those choices, we are the creators of what was, what is and what will be. And by those choices, we, collectively, choose whether to exist here and now in the Kingdom of Heaven or in a Living Hell. _________________________________ "I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and incur my own abhorrence." Frederick Douglass _________________________________ "You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don't have any boots, and you can't put yourself in another's shoes -- you can't even try on their socks." Soulofhawk _________________________________ "I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue." Albert Einstein _________________________________ Only in silence can your hear the voice of God." Soulofhawk ____________________________________ "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." Martin Luther King, Jr" ____________________________________ "Racists can hide in the closet, but the smell usually gives them away." Soulofhawk _________________________________ "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." Mark Twain ____________________________ "When we are young, Death comes as an unwelcome stranger; but as we get nearer the end of our own too-often rocky road, he comes more and more to resemble a long, lost acquaintance." Soulofhawk ____________________________________ “When monetary gain is involved, mans capacity for self-delusion is infinite.” Lord Byron _________________________________ "Where greed is good, need is great." Soulofhawk _________________________________ “And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as a leader in the introduction of change. For he who innovates will have as his enemies all who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new. This lukewarm temper arises partly from the incredulity of mankind, who will never admit the merit of anything new, until they have seen it proven by the event.” Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VI _________________________________ "if a man falls from a pedestal, who is really to blame -- the man or those who put him up there?" Soulofhawk ____________________________________ "The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners." Howard Zinn _______________________________ "The worst thing to be around a bigot is right." Soulofhawk ______________________________


OCTOBER 4, 2012 1:19AM


Rate: 27 Flag

I watched tonight's Presidential debate in its entirety. For that I deserve a new car -- or at least a cookie. The clear loser? Jim Lehrer. The clear winner? That’s debatable.

The pundit class compared it to Bush/Kerry I; but in many ways, it put me in mind of Kennedy/Nixon. If the debate had been only on radio, Obama would have won easily. But it wasn't only on radio.

Obama looked bored and disgusted -- and well he should have. Like most of us, he’s grown weary of Mitt's cheap, tawdry, desperate tactics, his vain attempt to portray himself as a severe conservative, and his now even more desperate and vain attempt to portray himself as a man of the people -- someone who cares about the little guy.

Yeah, right. And why does the word “vain” keep cropping up when it comes to Romney?


Yes, Mitt appeared more self-assured and appeared to have a better grasp of the facts. Problem is Mitt's facts aren't facts -- they're lies, deliberate, desperate lies. And what isn't lies is distortions. Simply put, the truth isn't in this man -- which is why I insist he's a sociopath.

No doubt it's hard to win a debate with a practiced sociopathic liar -- whether his name is Richard Nixon or Mitt Romney. When your opponent's every claim is based on lies and distortions, it's hard to call him on all of them without violating the old adage to never argue with a fool because those watching may be hard-pressed to tell which is which.

Given all that, the pundit class will jump to the conclusion Mitt was the winner; and because of that, he's likely to get a temporary bump in the polls. But that bump won't last, because his lies, distortions, and flip-flops are a matter of lengthy public record, and they will be exposed again and again in days to come -- as they deserve to be.


What lies in this debate, you ask? To cite the most obvious of many, Mitt completely reversed himself on taxes. He now says he won't be cutting taxes for the wealthy. That isn't likely to sit well with his fat-cat donors, save for the fact that they don't believe that for even a nano-second. Neither do I -- and neither should anyone else with a lick of sense.

Plying his sophistic trade to the max, Mitt claims the 20% tax rate reduction for the wealthy will be offset by eliminating deductions, so the wealthy will still pay the same amount. Uh-huh. And this is supposed to reduce the deficit how?

He also lied boldly and repeatedly when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle-class. In fact, he said he was going to cut middle-class tax rates by 20%. Again, that can't possibly be true if he intends to reduce the deficit. Or if he is going to reduce the deficit, then it will have to be by cutting services for the poor and middle class -- which is simply taxation by another name.

Mitt waves his magic wand and claims the deficit reduction will come about as a result of increased revenues from reduced tax rates. Can there be anyone so foolish as to not recognize this as the same old supply-side Voodoo Economics that got us into this mess in the first place? Sad to say, yes – probably somewhere close to sixty million American voters.


At one point in the debate, Obama called out Romney on this latest Big Lie, pointing out that Romney had been saying just the opposite for eighteen months, and that he was now completely reversing himself five weeks before the election. He then stared Romney down as if to say "I can’t believe you’d tell such bald-faced lies, and I can’t believe you’re fool enough to think you'll get away with them."

Romney better enjoy his Pyrrhic victory while he can; because it can’t last. He's carrying around way too much baggage and that makes him way too desperate. He may not be sweating on the outside like Nixon, but he’s damned sure sweating on the inside.

Meanwhile, Obama keeps his cool, and in the process makes his opponent look very uncool.

©2012 Tom Cordle

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Didn't see it, Tom. I was helping my daughter study for a science test, so thanks for filling me in. But do you really believe Romney's a sociopath? Sociopaths can't feel empathy and I think Mitt is very empathetic - toward the very wealthy.
You got that right, Tom! Obama was merely taking the High Road & weary of the Romney/Ryan 4-Faced Snake Oil Campaign! R
the whole struggle for the presidency is puerile nonsense.

whoever came up with "you get the government you deserve" encapsulated american politics beyond improvement.
It was Romney's night,I didn't think Obama did as bad as many on both sides seem to think but, Romney looked Presidential and that was huge.
Being from Massachusetts I saw Romney up close and at times personally. I never saw him called a sociopath. Clinton was a sociopath, Al Gore gained 80 lbs. and grew a beard when he lost.
You hate him,most here share your sentiment but, he had a great night.
Romney reminded me of the late blustering TV pitch man Billy Mays, so shrill and clearly cranked up I thought he might have a stroke. I wish Obama had been a tad more assertive, perhaps interrupting Romney a time or two and not caving every time Lehrer scolded him - every time but one, when O chided Lehrer for interrupting him. Lehrer let Romney bulldoze right over him.
Obambi earned his epithet. What was he thinking? Or, may be, he wasn't in the least?
Very good summary. I may add that I was puzzled about how Romney now really likes "regulations." Yet, all his big donors hate "regulations." Perhaps they don't believe him when Romney said this word and will still contribute to his campaign.

I agree that Jim Lehrer was the main loser. I really liked him on The NewsHour, but he was simply awful last night. I'm sure that if Jim would have been on the ball, the outcome would be different.
I hope you're right, but I fear you're not. The voting public doesn't always seem to dig real deep.
I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool party supporter, as you are, Tom - but despite the largely unanimous claims that Romney "won" the debate - I thought he seemed very strange. He seemed almost manic and a bit crazed (and of course this is alongside the avalanche of lies). Obama though...I wouldn't use the word "cool" as far as that all went. I thought he was a big old bag of nothing really. Of course in my opinion, which differs wildly from yours, I didn't expect him to tell many truths either. He could though have done better for himself - coming across to people - with a bit more Elizabeth Warren - make a case, pretend like you really, really care about people. Talk repeatedly about how unfair and unequal things have become - that would resonate with a lot more people than reciting all sorts of policy details.
At the risk of alluding to the famous Muslim Muhammad Ali, I'm hoping that what we saw was Obama working the rope-a-dope technique. Romney certainly is the right guy to play the dope role.
I thank you for commentary.
That's why I enjoy comments.
To delete (You Never Delete)
is the sucker-punch to Teeth.
E.M. Forster, 'Howards End'
It all turns on affection," said
"Affection, Don't You Think?"
I listened. I didn't see faces.
I heard from the farmer too.
They agree with you. Barack?
I heard he had a 1,000 mile stare.
He seemed to be listening to a DVD.
I mean his head was too overloaded.

I imagine he (B.O.) drank olive oil?
Maybe he was holding his bowels.
Mitt did sound the more animated.

Politicos think we lulled on dope.
Politics can be the masses opiate.
I wear red Poppy Bloom on a hat.
The baseball style hat is baby blue.
The summer hat read "Life is good."

Soon we'll be wearing sheep wool.
We can sport wet wool sock hats.
O, fun to pull hats over our eyes.
I hope Tom C. no have belly ache.
Politicos cause me stomach pains.
Margaret needs to hug Tom. C.?
Sounds like you time was much better spent. I don't think Mitt is empathetic even toward the wealthy -- after all, they're the competition -- the rest of us are just potential victims
I think you're right about Obama trying to take the high road -- and it might have pulled it off, if he hadn't looked quite so tired and quite so disinterested. But then, as I said, it's hard to get interested in debating a lying fool.
Well, you're nothing if not consistent. As for this:

" "you get the government you deserve" encapsulated american politics beyond improvement"

I prefer Will Rogers on the matter: "We've got the best govt money can buy."
What you see depends on where you sit. From where I sat, Romney exceeded expectations, but only because he set the bar so low over the past many months. And while it's true that Obama didn't meet expectations, he set the bar pretty damn high over the eight years or so he's been in the public eye.

Methinks that because Romney will be judged to have roundly bested Obama this time out, expectations will be far more equal next time out. If that's the case, I expect Romney will lose in a truly fair fight on a level playing field.

That playing field will be a lot more level with Candy Crowley as moderator. If Mitt tries to push her around like he did poor Jim Lehrer, he'll come off looking like exactly what he is -- a bully. That's another reason I say he's a sociopath.
Hey Tom.. I actually tried to watch for a while on CNN live stream but ended up listening to John Hiatt and Little Feat on Pandora. Just too painful, watching and listening to Romney, me going "HUH?" and O seeming befuddled.

"his lies, distortions, and flip-flops are a matter of lengthy public record, and they will be exposed again and again in days to come -- as they deserve to be."

Amen to that.

And fwiw, I absolutely agree with your 'sociopath' assessment.
I sum up the debate thusly: Romney = Amphetamines, Obama = Valium
Don't know if he's a sociopath but it's possible considering the childhood stuff. Otherwise,I wish we had more evidence.
I agree on the Phyricc victory thing. I don't think this debate will cause anyone to forget the 47 percent remark . I think the TV people like to make a lot of noise about nothing. The pundit class are so tedious already. I so miss those 3 channels and news being on just once a day or twice.
Ignoring the lies and distortions from both sides, Obama and Romney agree on 80% of what needs to get done and with the exception of defense spending and Medicare, they aren't that far apart about how to do it. Neither will admit to that before the election. If you look for substance or style, nobody one. If you look for energy, Romney had an edge. In the end neither Romney nor Obama brought anything new or coherent to the table and poor Jim Lehrer got his butt kicked.
Obama's dilemma is definitely Shakespearean: "To be or not to be, to take up arms against a sea of troubles and be judged an angry black man, or to sleep and dream no more of having to deal with bald-faced liars, racist bigots and pusillanimous pundits."
Thanks for pointing out another of Mitt's bald-faced lies. Or to be far more kind to Mitt than he deserves, Mitt's Reversal of Fortunetelling.

As for Lehrer, methinks it might be a good thing if Mitt -- or somebody -- did put him out to pasture. He wasn't up to the task even when he addressed the audience prior to the debates.
I hope I'm right, too, else the voting public will be digging real deep, and all but the very rich will be buried in that grave.
Since when is a "debate" a contest to be won or lost?
Geez, I should have realized you'd watch the whole thing, I could have just read you!

Put me in the "I hope you're right too" column. Believing that truth will win in the end is not easy. But I guess that's why they call it faith.
I'm not an Obama groupie, but I do think he is clearly the better of the two possible choices -- or the lesser evil for those who prefer to think only negatively. As I acknowledged in this post, I don't think he came off very well last night, but I don't believe he fell nearly as far as the vast distance Mitt has to make up, given his lengthy record of lies, distortions and flip-flops. And as I commented above, I think Obama will do just fine in a fair fight -- and this debate clearly was not given that the ref, Jim Lehrer, stuffed his flag in his pocket and left it there.
Ropeadope? I dunno, looked to me like Obama was off his game, for whatever reason. Mitt was clearly on his. Problem is Mitt's game was -- as always -- rigged. And beyond that, he certainly struck me as an overbearing, over-eager beaver. But regardless of who won the debate, I suspect the outcome was less important in this election than in some past elections because both men have substantial records.

Obama's record? Overpromising, yes, but delivering on some hugely important promises like healthcare reform (it really was a BFD, as Biden said), ending the war in Iraq, and getting Osama bin Laden. Those accomplishments alone ought to be enough to get him re-elected.

Mitt's record? Bain = chainsaw capitalism and outsourcing, not a winning formula in the present economic climate; and one not very successful term as governor of Mass. I say not very successful because of job statistics (this from a self-professed job-creator), and because its widely held that he more or less dropped-out all-but Palin-like after his first two years in office. Indeed, his only real accomplishment was signing onto the Democrats healthcare plan -- which he has foolishly chosen to argue isn't good enough to be applied nationwide.

Beyond that, Mitt has never won an election or served in govt. He made an unsuccessful run for President, and has essentially been running for that office ever since. During that time he has left a long list of gaffes and has engaged in pandering of the worst sort -- because it's so damned obvious.

You tell me -- which one of those records would you rather run on?
As always, you hit the nail on the head. Affection. Let's look affectionately at the likability factor:

1980 Reagan, yes, Carter, no
1980 Reagan, yes, Mondale, less so
1988 Big Bush, no; Dukakis, no
1992 Clinton, yes; Big Bush, no
1996 Clinton, yes; Dole, no
2000 Baby Bush, yes; Gore, no
2004 Baby Bush, yes; Kerry, no
2008 Obama, yes; McCain, less so
2012 Obama, yes; Romney, hell no
Actually you did watch. Obama's performance was a little feat, and Mitt's was Pandora opening her box. And Mitt's sociopathic bullying of both Lehrer and Obama, confirmed my suspicion that he's also a blustering wimp. Can you say Willard of Oz?
yeah, i love the comparison, tom, though it makes me shudder.
(see my satiric post)
it is all about appearance.
mitt appeared and wasnt an idiot.
cuz they prepped him up the ass.
i woulda been a bit more animatic, if i was o.
but i am a big hambone.
next time, someone should offer o a bone to smoke to
get his mojo goin. that is my opinion.

lies told affably will win over the idiot undecided.
The media corpo-plex got its precious 5 more weeks of "horse race." In that regard, Gov. Christie wasn't so much prescient as a sleezy manipulater, all too familiar with what passes for the press.

Obama is well aware the press are too intimidated to appear to have his back. This so-called "poor performance" by the president is made infinitesimal by that of the fourth estate with regard to the truth in Mitt Romney's words.
This from Patrick Martin on wsws:

"Obama made only one timid reference to the role of Wall Street in wrecking the US and world economy. Even there, he equated the swindlers and the swindled, saying that the workers hoodwinked into taking out sub-prime mortgages and the bankers who pocketed huge bonuses by fleecing them were both guilty of “reckless behavior.”

"Obama also refrained from identifying Romney personally with Wall Street. In the course of the nationally televised event, he made no mention of Romney’s role as a corporate raider at Bain Capital, Romney’s refusal to release his tax returns, or his use of offshore investment accounts.

"Most significantly, he made no reference to Romney’s disparaging comments about the “47 percent” of Americans dependent on government programs and too poor to pay federal income taxes, and his assertion that no one in America should consider himself “entitled” to food, health care or a roof over his head.

"Based on conventional electoral considerations, this silence would appear inexplicable. Obama campaign television commercials have hammered Romney on his “47 percent” remarks for two weeks, and Romney’s poll numbers declined as a consequence.

"It is clear, however, that in preparing for the first debate, with an estimated television audience of 60 million, the largest of the campaign, Obama and his political handlers viewed any hint of economic populism as too dangerous. It might offend the Wall Street power brokers and encourage a militant response from below."


Obama would not champion the 99% because he didn't want to make the 1% nervous. Hard to debate someone when you are covertly but not really all that covertly supporting the SAME stances.

best, libby
I haven't read any of the comments, Tom. I barely got through your post. I haven't turned the television on today, and I haven't read any of the commentaries. The reason: it doesn't matter. The vast majority of the voters have already made up their minds. The small percentage that might vote for Romney on the basis of last night's performance aren't enough to swing the election.

You see, both of these guys think the election is in the bag.

That's the only explanation for what we saw last night.

Romney felt comfortable with repudiating all of the Tea Baggish things he's been saying because Romney thinks the election is in the bag. It's in the bag, or so he thinks, because of the voter suppression efforts, which are continuing despite court rulings striking down the laws. In more than 15 states, there are advertising and public relations campaigns now underway telling voters that they can't vote if they don't have a picture ID. These campaigns are being conducted - and funded - by Republican office holders in the various states.

Obama thinks the election is in the bag because he has an invisible lead among women.

Here's a news flash for you all. Women don't like Ann Romney at all, but they do like Michelle Obama, a lot.

And then there are the college students out there, who are more concerned about students loans than they are concerned about the national debt.

And then there's the Latino vote, which is solidly behind Obama.

He has the labor unions. He has a great deal of the serving military, who like the dispatch with which he's waging their wars.

He has all of the pieces of the puzzle except the Jewish vote which, I am afraid, is going to abandon him and give Florida to Romney.

The other thing is that, yesterday, Romney gave Obama all the ammunition he needs to prove the point that Romney's a liar. I am willing to bet that this was the plan. They wanted to draw Romney out, let him play the bully, which he did, and let him make more statements that they can hang around his neck.

Right now, I hope, the spin merchants are busy cutting new commercials in which they can show Romney saying first one thing and contradicting himself over and over again.

That's what I would be doing. That's what I would do if someone were paying me to do it....but no one ever listens to me until it's too late.

And, even if this wasn't a clever strategy, it doesn't matter. Romney was so intent on winning over the people that he never realized that he was going to lose the election by winning the debate. Sure, he showed off to the American people, and some damned fools will be taken in by that. But in so doing, he has contradicted everything he has been saying for the past two years....and that's not going to go unnoticed.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.
It looks to me that sagemerlin is saying the same sort of thing I was, although he is much better at using more words to do it.
Sure, it was disappointing. I like seeing bullies get hurt.I wanted Obama to zing Romney's zang. Get some what for into it.
But, I'm not convinced the President was off his game. Even if he were though, Romney has provided enough ballast to tilt his own ship nose down for the next 30 days.
Obama stood there like a grown man with a real job grinning at the taunts of a pipsqueak school yard bully.
Willard of Odd.
He's just a hairdo.
So for those deduction cuts, did anyone notice his defense of the oil depletion allowance? One of many examples of Rmoney's well crafted bullshit.
ha overlooked that one, tom.

" Problem is Mitt's facts aren't facts -- they're lies, deliberate, desperate lies. And what isn't lies is distortions. Simply put, the truth isn't in this man -- which is why I insist he's a sociopath. "

ye gods man. haw and another haw
sage merlin got some damn hardball political chops.
never thought of this tho it makes sense

Romney was so intent on winning over the people that he never realized that he was going to lose the election by winning the debate.
Actually, I did listen to the entire debate on the radio and then went to bed. I can't say that it really effected me either way - pretty much the same campaign rhetoric. I called it a tie.

I was really surprised to turn on the radio on the way to work this morning and hear the reaction. NPR said the Obama was listless and vacant, Fox was doing handstands with glee.

That's not what I heard. Why doesn't this jive with what I didn't see?
Right you are, as usual. I'm really tired of this whole sordid affair. Romney's lies will catch up to him between now and the next debate... I hope.
You nailed it, Tom...great post.

The pundit class NEEDS this election to be close, so their reaction was predictable. As for the good old days, I'm with you. To paraphrase the song from All in the Family "Mister, we could use a man like Walter Cronkite again."

You and I will have to agree to disagree about the degree of difference between these two men, beginning with the fact that one has honesty and dignity and the other is a sociopath without any moral scruples.
Hate to break it to you, but debates are always won or lost, though there can be a considerable difference of opinion about who won and who lost and by how much

I don't have faith that truth always wins, because if it did Bush the Least would never have gotten elected. I have a little more faith that the truth eventually comes out, but sad to say, we too often learn it when it's far too late to do anything about it. Let's hope that's not the case in this case.
Yes, lies told affably can be a formula for immediate success, but they seldom survive the judgment of history.

Let's see how a few days tempers the rush to judgment on the part of the punditry.

Thanks for visiting in spite of our differences. You obviously have a much different view of Obama than I do. You expect sainthood, which is why you support saints like Jill Stein (and I'm going to take a wild guess you supported Ralph Nader, too). I'm stuck with reality, and I have to support real, flawed human beings, so I choose between the only two that have a chance of winning.

In this case, the choice is easier than it's been any other time in my life. I only wish you could see the light.
It reminded me a bit of Reagan-Mondale 1 where Reagan came off as doddering. Of course he recovered and breezed through the second one.

Most voters have a dim understanding of the issues are and the candidates' positions. Romney came across as polished and credible and that's enough to boost his chances for now. InTrade reflects this with Obama bets dropping from 80% to 65%.

As you point out Tom, what Romney said in the debate is different than what he's said previously and it seemed incoherent to me. As best as I could make out, the new Etch-a-Sketched position is that tax rates will be cut but they won't affect government revenues because they'll be offset by eliminating (unspecified) deductions. This will somehow create millions of new jobs. I wish Obama had said "If I believed that would work I'd vote for you". I also wish that Obama had cited the auto bailout when asked about the role of government. Since Romney wrote an op-ed opposing it Obama could have drawn a nice contrast.

Obama's demeanor didn't help his cause either. He hesitated often, if only for a second or so. But that made him look unsure, as though he was conceding Romney's point about his general ineffectiveness.

For sure he'll be feistier next time out but if the debates are by topic he'll have little opportunity to go over last night's points.
I see Obama's performance as less a case of rope-a-dope and more a case of being thoroughly disgusted at having to lower himself to deal with a cheap, lying hustler.

Be that as it may, I'm sure the airwaves will be filled with split screen ads showing Mendacious Mitt lying out of both sides of his mouth for the rest of the campaign season, and Mitt's conveniently -- and stupidly -- provided plenty of ammunition in this debate.

Funny how Mitt the Moral Mormon can't drink or smoke, but he can lie like a two-bit whore without the least qualm about it. Sorry, that comparison's an insult to two-bit whores.
Your backhanded compliment to sagemerlin "he is much better at using more words to do it" could also be applied to President Obama. I think we'd all like to see him prick the prick, and the prick provided plenty of opportunities to prick his pompous, self-inflated balloon. But I think you nailed the President's chosen course of action:

"Obama stood there like a grown man with a real job grinning at the taunts of a pipsqueak school yard bully."
I hated watching Mitt get so high on ambition. Maybe it's because he's banned from so many other excesses.
It's tough to debate a sociopath, but Obama didn't seem to be trying very hard, maybe out of disgust, maybe because of other things, both mental and physical. He can't afford to have that kind of performance again. But at least there will be loads of split/screen ads coming out of this.
Personally, I was live blogging with Bill Maher on FB who managed to get some -- excuse the expression -- black humor out of it. He's given Obama a million dollars, so he earned the right to joke.
I'm not sure if it's raw sociopathy or arrogant entitlement, but Romney's effort to be "every guy" failed. Unfortunately, the damn dumb Dems tired strategy of having the president look "presidential" also failed.

No matter the pundits, my concern is that 58 million people watched the debate, got reassuring sound bites from Mitt (most lies, but nobody cares the next day) and what appeared as lackluster non-leadership from the president. He IS the president... Nobody can cut him off or cover him with dirt if he chooses not to let them.

These debates are all about the undecideds, and to my mind, they focus most on the economy. Epic fail by the President. Where was the guy who loves the stump, thrives on competition and showed up to speak the next day about "somebody who looked like Mitt Romney" at the debate. That Obama should have owned the room. Oy.
Romney defends the oil depletion allowance because he’s heavily invested in Brylcreem.

Yes, sagemerlin has got some chops

You heard it like I heard it – too bad so many didn’t SEE it that way.

“ Romney's lies will catch up to him between now and the next debate... I hope.” I’d say that’s a pretty audacious hope/

Rob Neukirch
“InTrade reflects this with Obama bets dropping from 80% to 65%” Another indication of just how godawful “capitalism” has become – glorified bookies will take bets on just about anything. In the process, the Presidency is demeaned – and all but the richest go broke.

You’re quite right that Obama had plenty of chances to plant some zingers, but it struck me he decided he wasn’t going to dignify Romney’s absolute bullshit with a witty response. I’d have liked to see Romney squashed like the bug he is, but Obama chose the high road. Then again, it’s awful lonely on the high road.
I love this sentiment and I, too, am looking for a lens through which to view the debate in a positive light. Obama sucked -he wasn't just cool, he was hesitant, he NODDED when Romney criticized him like he agreed, he stuttered and bumbled. He let Romney win - which he legitimately did - unless you factor in the truth/lies ratio. Let's hope that matters, that Obama comes out swinging in the next two, that Biden kicks Ryan's ass - and I love Biden, and don't doubt him the way most others do - and that people show up at the polls. Great post!
Glad you agree that it’s tough to debate a sociopath. I don’t make that charge lightly, but Romney’s history is filled with signs – and his utter ruthlessness and mendaciousness are signs as well. Split screens may not make the case for sociopathy, but they’ll damn sure make the case for mendacity.

As for Maher, he’s pretty quick with a quip, but I think Obama would prefer to save those for the National Press Club rather than engage in low comedy during what is supposed to be a dignified debate for the Presidency.
“I'm not sure if it's raw sociopathy or arrogant entitlement”

I’m not sure either, but the consequences for the country would be pretty much the same. As for Obama’s “fail”, I wouldn’t characterize it quite that harshly, but it was a long, long way from what he’s proven he’s capable of. Then again, it’s hard to win a fight when you play by the rules, and the other guy utterly totally ignores them. And utterly ignoring the rules is another symptom of sociopathy.
I agree with Jaime Franchi.
I can't tolerate these goons.
They scorn and despise us.
Maybe that's a overstatement?
I have seen injustice. I wonder?
Why did not some Justice occur?
on/on and here he rants `gin?
I was jailed by banker a` CEO.
I got no trial by jury or ` Care.
I handed layman law briefs to:
Newspapers, Bush's Chertoff.
(Bush's white collar investigator)
I was emailing J. Ascroft. Mute.
I got death threats. Met FBI.

Sonny (FBI) - Sarbanes was
the Banking Chairman Head
and I get Headache Pondering
Ask Waybesboro, PA's police?
The ...
Never Mind. It's grief to me.
I handed with my bare hand
PA's former Homeland Sec.
Director a packet etc., huh
Visit Chambersburg, PA?
No. Folk get killed in PA.
A Balto Attorney died too.
Who cares?
I still wonder.
Kim Doan?
She was the poorest of poor.
She was part American blood.
I unofficially sponsored Kim.
She lost heath, home, faith.
Who's steal a Laundromat?
Two depraved PA lawyers.

My probation Officer died.
I am sure from Natural cause?
The prosecutor D.A. died.
He no let me have lawyer,
trial, and knew Judge Walker.
I was groaning last night in bed.
I cant blame Blogger Joan H..
Joan makes me feel Joyful.
Poor Kim Doan. Despair.
Justice? Care? I Wonder.
Tom C. Forgive me? I hope You do. Hope.
The jail I was in and bank is Waynesboro.
I met FBI at the local police department.
Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell!
I took for the better; take thy fortunes;
Thou find'st to be too busy in some danger.
111, 4, 31-33
I was reading this this morn.
I took my computer to the farm.
Next place for gizmo is dung pile.
This is a compliment to Tom Cordle.
Jaime Franchi
Thanks for the compliment.

You wrote "Obama sucked - he NODDED when Romney criticized him like he agreed". I saw that differently. Obama's nods were usually accompanied by a sardonic smile (when they weren't accompanied by a grimace). I read in that an affirmation of a different sort: "Keep puking-up bullshit, Honky, and one day soon you're gonna drown in it."

As for the Joe Biden/Ayn Ryan debate, that should be far more entertaining because Ayn Man is such an easy target. What a pompous ass -- he's almost worse than Romney.

Ayn will fill the air with numbers, and Biden will fill the air with heartfelt stories and barbed comebacks. One way or another, their debate should seal the deal with undecided seniors -- if any can possibly be left. I'm bettin' they go with Joe Biden and his stories instead of Boy Wonder and his vouchers.
I am truly sorry for your trials and tribulations. I could quote you from Job, but I never thought much of that story. Who wants a God who bargains with the Devil? Who wants a God that makes a man suffer for no good reason?

Instead, I'll give you Anatole France on "justice" and the "law":

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

The truth of that observation is confirmed by the fact Mitt Romney is running for President rather than doing time in prison for fraud.
It's a wonder Mitt didn't break his neck jerking his persona back to the center so fast. Fascinating, too, that the Tea Party types aren't up in arms, at least yet.

I'd agree with you, Tom, that while Mitt will get a bump from the debate, it's unlikely it'll affect the outcome next month. I'll put my money on a pretty strong win for the President. Holding the Sentate, and gains in the House would be nice, too.

Good news on unemployment down below 8%, by the way. Hope that trend continues.

Mitt's dismal showing in the polls leaves Teapartians no wiggle-room -- they've got to let the fish flop. Were I a kinder, gentler sort, I'd almost feel sorry for the bastards; they're left with a choice between a Sociopath and a Socialist, between a Mormon and a Muslim. But I'm not a kinder, gentler sort; and so I say, even at that they're getting a far better choice than they deserve.
Great wordplay, Tom. Teach it to them candidates, wouldja?
Thanks for visiting and for the kind words. I suspect most politicians could learn a great deal if they actually had to listen to some of us ordinary folk -- but alas, our opinions don't count for much unless they're accompanied by a six-figure check

You wrote:

"Beyond that, Mitt has never won an election or served in govt."

I guess getting elected Governor of Massachusetts and serving one four-year term doesn't count, huh?

As for your comment about being practical and voting for Obama instead of looking for alleged saints like Nader or Jill Stein, all I can say in reply is that it is childish, condescending and flat-out wrong. Obama has proven himself to be no more than a loyal servant of the plutocracy, has further denuded the Constitution of basic civil rights--signed NDAA--and has legitimized extra-judicial assassinations. I'm not looking for saints. They don't exist. What I am looking for is someone who actually believes in upholding and defending the Constitution and believes that part of the function of the federal government is to provide for the general welfare of Americans, not to coddle the corporate plutocracy. Sad;y, millions of voters have been brainwashed by their limited schooling and the corporate media into believing the only practical decision is to vote for the lesser evil. The result is that you ratify evil. If that is really the only real choice, to vote for two flavors of evil, then voting is just an emotional exercise where you're fooling yourself into thinking you've made a positive choice.
Either you're deliberately taking out of context what I wrote in the comment you cite -- or you didn't read what I wrote. I'm not sure which makes you look worse. Since you didn't get it the first time, I don't mind repeating what I said about Romney's dubious record as an elected official:

" not very successful term as governor of Mass. I say not very successful because of job statistics (this from a self-professed job-creator), and because its widely held that he more or less dropped-out all-but Palin-like after his first two years in office. Indeed, his only real accomplishment was signing onto the Democrats healthcare plan -- which he has foolishly chosen to argue isn't good enough to be applied nationwide."

As for third party candidates, throwing your vote away on someone who can't possibly win, who will be no more than an asterisk after the election, is not the high moral ground. Grown-ups make difficult choices, while children console themselves with fantasies. Childish, indeed.
The real issue here is why anyone is invested in talking politics when all the politicians speech out of the left side of their mouth and/or the right side of their mouth while every one of them are all really working for Bank America, CitiGroup, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, the Rothchilds, etc etc and the related sociopaths, including the military industrial complex, Monsanto, etc etc and do our votes count for anything more than the theater we attach to voting?

The people never win.
I might add this: When is the last time the United States of America had a real statesman in the White House...?
Sorry, but I can't agree, it is simply false equivalency to argue "they're all the same." No, they're not -- some are clearly worse than others, and some -- Bush the Least being an obvious example -- are much worse than others. Frankly, I think Romney would be even worse than Bush for the middle class and the poor, and he will be at least as bad on foreign relations.
yo latest gossip re mitt:
this missionary shit he so proud of in mexico, his daddy?
oops his forefathers were polygamists.
Yes, that info has been out there for some time, When the US made it plain to Utah, no monogamy, no statehood, Utah caved. Here's the skinny on Romney's family history from the website The Oval:

His paternal great-grandfathers, Miles Park Romney and Helaman Pratt, were born in the United States but lived for decades in Mexico. Pratt was a Mormon missionary there; Miles Park Romney left Utah for Mexico with a tribe of polygamous Mormons after the practice was outlawed in the United States in 1890.

Pratt had five wives. Miles Park Romney had four, and 30 children, one of whom was Gaskell Romney. The polygamy stopped at Gaskell, who had a single wife and seven children. One of the children, George, was born in a Mormon colony in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, although he was nonetheless a U.S. citizen. He was Mitt's father.
This to the Stein supporters: Pray tell what would a prez be able to do when most of the power and initiative in the American system of government lies with congress? For a third party to get anywhere, it would have to have candidates in most ridings, not just a prez.
Great point, further demonstrating the folly of Pyrrhic "victories".