It was very difficult for me to follow the debates while trying to remain objective with Romney being rude, arrogant, and stomping all over the moderator. He was pompous and sounded, at times, like a tv-evangelist. He tried to make a case that Obama wasn't working in a bipartisan manner. It inflamed me that he pretended not to note the obstructionism of the Republicans during the past four years.Romney said he wanted to change the bad state in the past four years, making no mention of what this president inherited. His major theme is always to criticize Obama and still did not really talk much about what he plans to do in detail as to how he will achieve
his goal.
Steve Schmidt thought Obama had a bad performance. Ed Schultz was negative. Al Sharpton was far more critically diagnostic. He\d was wonderful at pointing out Romney's lies.
The pundits were aware that Mitt Romney rolled over everyone and everything..Ed Schultz was emotional and furious that there wasn't more fury shown. If there are fact checkers, a couple of things should come to light. Lawrence O'Donnell spoke with someone who listened to the debate without the emotion of the MSNBC pundits and made more sense.
For those who thought that Romney won, they have short term memories about his 'truths'. Republicans thought their hero did well. Rudy Juliani heard what he wanted to hear and thought it was a game changer. I sincerely hope the American people are not so easily fooled.
No comments:
Post a Comment