Fact check: Stumbles in latest presidential debate
Election 2012
Click here for all of the election results with stories, galleries, podcasts and more.
Photo
Spectators watch a television broadcast of the presidential debate at the Chicago History Museum in Chicago during the Tuesday evening Oct. 16, 2012 debate viewing event.
WASHINGTON — In the rough-and-tumble of a town hall-style presidential debate, the facts took something of a beating Tuesday night.
Mitt Romney wrongly claimed that it took 14 days for President Barack Obama to brand the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya a terrorist act. Obama yet again claimed that ending the Afghanistan and Iraq wars makes money available to "rebuild America," even though it doesn't.
A look at some of their claims:
OBAMA: The day after last month's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, "I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."
ROMNEY: "I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."
OBAMA: "Get the transcript."
THE FACTS: Obama is correct in saying that he referred to Benghazi as an act of terrorism on Sept. 12, the day after the attack. From the Rose Garden, he said: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. ... We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act."
But others in his administration repeated for several days its belief that the violence stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam. It took almost a month before officials acknowledged that those protests never occurred. And Romney is right in arguing that the administration has yet to explain why it took so long for that correction to be made or how it came to believe that the attack evolved from an angry demonstration.
___
OBAMA: "Let's take the money that we've been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America, roads, bridges, schools. We do those things, not only is your future going to be bright, but America's future is going to be bright as well."
THE FACTS: What Obama didn't mention is that much of the money that has been paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was borrowed. In fact, the government borrows nearly 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Thus, using money that had been earmarked for wars to build schools and infrastructure would involve even more borrowing, adding to the federal deficit.
___
ROMNEY: "As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands and in federal waters."
OBAMA: "Very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We've opened up public lands. We're actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration and my — the previous president was an oilman."
THE FACTS: Both statements ring true, as far as they go. Obama more correctly describes the bigger picture.
According to an Energy Department study published in the spring, sales of oil from federal areas fell 14 percent between 2010 and 2011 and sales of natural gas production fell 9 percent, supporting Romney's point. The lower oil production was a result mainly of a moratorium on offshore drilling imposed by the Obama administration after the April 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
According to the same report, though, oil production from federal areas is up 13 percent since Obama took office despite last year's dip, and analysts say Gulf oil production is expected to soon exceed its pre-spill levels.
Natural gas production from federal areas has been declining for years because drillers have found vast reserves of natural gas in formations under several states that are cheaper to access than most federally controlled areas.
___
OBAMA: "For young people who've come here, brought here oftentimes by their parents, have gone to school here, pledged allegiance to the flag, think of this as their country and understand themselves as Americans in every way except having papers, we should make sure we give them a pathway to citizenship. And that's what I've done administratively."
THE FACTS: His administrative actions do not provide a pathway to citizenship. The administration is allowing as many as 1.7 million young illegal immigrants to apply to avoid deportation for up to two years and get a work permit. And the government has begun a policy of prosecutorial discretion under which illegal immigrants with longstanding ties to the U.S. and no criminal history are generally not arrested and deported by immigration authorities. But these steps do not extend legal status or a process resulting in citizenship.
___
ROMNEY: "I know he keeps saying, 'You want to take Detroit bankrupt.' Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And I think it's important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened."
THE FACTS: What Romney recommended did not happen, and his proposed path probably would have forced General Motors and Chrysler out of business. He opposed using government money to bail out the automakers, instead favoring privately financed bankruptcy restructuring. But the automakers were bleeding cash and were poor credit risks. The banking system was in crisis. So private loans weren't available. Without government aid, both companies probably would have gone under and their assets would have been sold in pieces.
___
OBAMA: "And what I want to do is build on the 5 million jobs that we've created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone."
THE FACTS: As he has done before, Obama is cherry-picking his numbers to make them sound better than they really are. He ignores the fact that public-sector job losses have dragged down overall job creation. Also, he chooses just to mention the past 30 months. That ignores job losses during his presidency up until that point. According to the Labor Department, about 4.5 million total jobs have been created over the past 30 months. But some 4.3 million jobs were lost during the earlier months of his administration. At this point, Obama is a net job creator, but only marginally.
___
ROMNEY: "The proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you're paying at the pump. If you're paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you're paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about $1.86 a gallon. Now, it's $4 a gallon. The price of electricity is up. If the president's energy policies are working, you're going to see the cost of energy come down."
THE FACTS: Presidents have almost no effect on energy prices; most are set on financial exchanges around the world. When Obama took office, the world was in the grip of a financial crisis and crude prices — and gasoline prices along with them — had plummeted because world demand had collapsed. Crude oil prices have since risen even as U.S. oil production has soared in recent years because global demand is reaching new heights as the developing economies of Asia use more oil.
Other energy prices have fallen during Obama's term. Electricity prices, when adjusted for inflation, are down, and homeowners are finding it much cheaper to heat their homes with natural gas. That's because natural gas production has surged, reducing prices both for homeowners and for utilities that burn gas to generate electricity.
___
OBAMA: "What I've also said is, for (those earning) above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president."
THE FACTS: Not exactly. The Bush tax cuts set the top income rate at 35 percent. Under Obama's proposal to raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000, the president would return the top rate to the 39.6 percent set during the Clinton administration. But he neglected to mention that his health care law includes a new 0.9 percent Medicare surcharge on households earning over that amount — and that tax would be retained. The health care law also imposes a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for high earners. So tax rates would be higher for the wealthiest Americans than they were under Clinton.
___
ROMNEY: "I'm going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I'm going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they're paying now."
THE FACTS: Romney is proposing to cut all income tax rates by 20 percent, eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax, maintain and expand tax breaks for investment income, and do it all without adding to the deficit or shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. He says he would pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax deductions, exemptions and credits, but he can't achieve all of his goals under the budget rules presidents must follow.
The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says in a study that the tax cuts proposed by Romney would reduce federal tax revenues by about $5 trillion over 10 years. The study concludes that there aren't enough tax breaks for the wealthy to make up the lost revenue, so the proposal would either add to the deficit or shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class.
Romney's campaign cites studies by conservative academics and think tanks that say Romney's plan will spur economic growth, generating enough additional money to pay for the tax cuts without adding to the deficit or shifting the tax burden to the middle class. But Congress doesn't recognize those kinds of economic projections when it estimates the budget impact of tax proposals.
___
ROMNEY: "A recent study has shown that people in the middle class will see $4,000 a year in higher taxes as a result of the spending and borrowing of this administration."
THE FACTS: Romney's claim is based on an analysis by the conservative American Enterprise Institute that examines the amount of debt that has accumulated on Obama's watch and in a potential second term and computes how much it would cost to finance that debt through tax increases. Annual deficits under Obama have exceeded $1 trillion for each year of his term.
However, Obama is not responsible for all of the deficits that have occurred on his watch. Most of the federal budget — like Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid and Social Security — runs on autopilot, and no one in a leadership position in Washington has proposed deep cuts in those programs. And politicians in both parties voted two years ago to renew Bush-era tax cuts that have contributed to the deficit. Even under the strict spending cuts proposed by Romney, the debt would continue to rise, just not as quickly.
___
Associated Press writers Jonathan Fahey, Tom Krisher, Stephen Ohlemacher, Andrew Taylor, Bradley Klapper, Matthew Daly, Matthew Lee and Alicia A. Caldwell contributed to this report.
Oct 18, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
I prefer Poltifact over Fact check as a source as Fact Check does make mistakes more often, but between the two sites you can get a pretty good sense of the truth. Both conservatives and liberals on this site reference biased sites that support their point of view. Everyone should read the "about" section at each political site they reference. As soon as you see "XXX is committed to promoting conservative/liberal values" you should take everything in the article with a grain of salt. Read them, but PLEASE highlight the main points in the article and fact check them. As long as the only sources of information we will use support what we choose to believe and not reality, we will never fix the problems this country is facing. I read post from so many from the right on this site state that Obama wants to change this country into a socialistic/communistic form of govt. That is just plain silly. We have a form of govt with a system of checks and balances that would prevent that. The most severe threat to our country is a misinformed/uninformed electorate. Without knowledge based in fact we risk becoming an oligarchy, which we are well on the way to becoming. There is nothing in our system of govt that safe guards against this.
I am very offended that we have candidates running for office who believe they can debate and lie to us for 1 ½ hours and that we are too stupid or easily manipulated that they can get away with it. As long as we insist on using only those sites that tell us what we want to hear and not the truth, we validate that very opinion they have of us.
Oct 18, 2012 at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
poobah
You do realize that California was left out of the last week job report, that is how the unemployment number miraculously went down.
Oct 18, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
"But I have seen your previous posts on here and to be perfectly honest, you are not very intelligent."
-
From you Shrek, I'll take that as a compliment. Breitbart and Fox News exist for that segment of the population who are unable to form their own thoughts. They depend on others to do their thinking for them. Because the basis of their arguments are flawed, Brieitbart and Fox must resort to labeling those who don't share their views as "less intelligent". Propaganda works best when you flatter the audience and demonize the opponent. Individuals like you are swayed by their propaganda, believing only what you want to hear. Those who are capable of rational thinking understand that Fox and Brietbart use misinformation to promote extreme conservative viewpoints. To consider either one of those sources as "credible" is incredible.
Oct 18, 2012 at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Mitt Romney's oldest son joked in a radio interview Wednesday his preferred method of dealing with a combative President Barack Obama was to "take a swing" at his dad's rival." [ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201... ]
Does bullying have a genetic factor? Or perhaps it's environmental?
Oct 18, 2012 at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 7.3% in mid-October, down considerably from 7.9% at the end of September and at a new low since Gallup began collecting employment data in January 2010. Gallup's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 7.7%, also down from September. October's adjusted mid-month measure is also more than a percentage point lower than October 2011." [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/158060/unadju... ]
Oct 18, 2012 at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
wislady said, "Alan Grayson faces tight race and accusation of $2.1 million tax fraud"
Hmmm, I wonder if RetiredAirForce will step up and ask you, "How exactly does anything that happened in Grayson's past have to do with the current election....that's right nothing. Spin, twist, repeat. Anything to deflect from the story and facts." I rather doubt that will happen, don't you?
Perhaps Grayson will replace Republican Darrell Issa as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. You know, the guy with a history of run-ins with law enforcement and the courts for auto theft and weapons charges.
Oct 18, 2012 at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh, oh....another jobs report out.
That "expected" recovery number, not so good.
388,000, the highest in four months....spin that!
Oct 18, 2012 at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pathetic response, just like Obama.
Oct 18, 2012 at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gas...from $4.21 under Bush to $3.74 under Obama.
Economy on brink of collapse = high gas prices = Bush league economics
Oct 18, 2012 at 7 a.m.
Suggest removal
About Alan Grayson....having a little "bump in the road" of his own.
Alan Grayson faces tight race and accusation of $2.1 million tax fraud
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wate...
Oct 18, 2012 at 6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gas....$1.84 to $3.74
Good economy=high gas prices=Obamanomics
Oct 18, 2012 at 6:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama doesn't need TOTUS any more, he has Crowley.
Al Qaida is very much alive....yesterday is proof. Obama had to change his stump speech yesterday. This WH administration is "evolving" (in other words, lying and coverup).
Oct 18, 2012 at 1:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Another quick question I have for the right wing excuse makers do you really believe that there will be 12 million new jobs here in America if Mitt and Paul Ryan are elected?"
.
Rather odd statement he made indeed, especially when he proceeded to say that government does not create jobs! Well, if they are not going to create jobs, how is he promising 12 million?? If elected President, is he not part of government? Perhaps his claim is that his policy will create all these 12 million jobs in the private sector. Of course this policy that promises everything known to mankind will never have a chance in hell of ever going anywhere if he is elected, as the house is almost of certain to remain divided. The most rational explanation I can think of would be they would be them being created in defense when the next axis of evil is declared, and the big ole invasion of the evil dooers is embarked upon. No better way to create jobs then a massive war effort against some coaxed up enemy.
Oct 18, 2012 at 12:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Calling Breitbart a credible source is like calling MSNBC, or Faux non-partisan.
Oct 18, 2012 at 12:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.alternet.org/story/151236/10_...
Oct 18, 2012 at 12:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Speaking of Glenn Beck, in happier times when the two weren’t feuding, Breibart was the source for numerous Beck offensives. He provided Beck with scandalous material on Van Jones who, at the time, was a White House adviser on environmental initiatives. Beck lauded Breitbart, saying...
"You know where the great journalists of our time are? Andrew Breitbart. [...] You were the only one, besides watchdogs, that were really aggressively working behind the scenes with us on Van Jones."
The same thing occurred with Yosi Sergant, communications director for the National Endowment for the Arts. Breitbart went after him and provided the data to Beck, who said...
"This is again another Breitbart story, where the NEA communications director reached out and said, hey, listen, we have to be very careful with our language here."
In both cases the information provided by Breitbart was vague and/or untrue, but both Jones and Sergant were jettisoned -- just as Sherrod was -- by a nervous White House for violations that were either false or greatly exaggerated.
7) Democrats Plotted to Blame Tea Party for Slaughter: Breitbart’s site featured an article making the sensationalist claim that Democrats devised a plan to blame the Tea Party for the tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ. The allegation consisted of a single, unidentified source who merely offered his own opinion that the massacre could be pinned on Tea Partiers. There was no allegation of a conspiracy or even of any discussions of such a plan by anyone connected to the Democratic Party. But that didn’t stop Breitbart from posting the story with an irresponsibly provocative headline.
Oct 18, 2012 at 12:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
In another phony video sting , Breitbart published a video of the proceedings of a class on the history of labor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. As usual, the video was a deceitful mashup that misrepresented the professors and students as supporting violent labor activity. The twist here is that it was Breitbart’s one-time friend Glenn Beck who published an accounting of the video deception and vindicated the professors. As a bonus intrigue, the party who gave Breitbart the UM video is identified only as Insurgent Visuals. That, however, may be a ruse to disguise Breitbart’s long-time partner in crime, James O’Keefe
Oct 18, 2012 at 12:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brietbart LEANS right? LEANS!! That is almost as stupid a statement as calling him credible. Let me help you:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/03/02/how-...
Breitbart published a story with no evidence, about an alleged conspiracy that never came to pass:
“Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a ‘push/pull’ strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign.”
Also never coming to pass…a retraction. This story bubbled up through the media like much of Breitbart’s fiction, eventually getting coverage from Fox Nation
Jason Mattera, who later became editor of Human Events, was employed to run a couple of “ambush” interviews that were posted on Breitbart’s Web site. One interview targeted Rep. Alan Grayson and castigated him for his support of a bill that funded a program to prevent child abuse. The other interview was directed at Sen. Al Franken , who was attacked for supporting student health and school safety. In both cases Mattera twisted the purpose of the legislation into something unrecognizable and patently false. Expect more of this, because as Breitbart says in his book, Righteous Indignation , “Ambush journalism is the most valuable kind of journalism."
Oct 18, 2012 at 12:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
great post on Fox Kiowa. Here what we have the usual suspects who think their candidate won the debate, and their olnly explaination of why he didnt? Bias!!! That is the easiexst measuring stick of how to tell who won. Substance? Obama(easy), style(draw), combativeness(close nod to Obama becaiuse of the finger shaking at Mitt, although when Mitt told the pres to sit down was prettt goood too.)
Here's what I see, there are no undecided voters. Any suspicion that there is at this point is laughable. I also see when conservatives win a debate and polls change oin their favor, polls are now credible , yet a month ago they were unfair and biased, when your guy was down. 2 weeks ago when Mitt wiped the floor with Obama, all in the world was good and great no talk of Jim Lehrer from PBS being biased and working for a left wing organization(PBS). Joe Biden comes out and absolutely destroys Paul Ryan and all we hear is about how rude Joe was and how he wasnt being polite, and again how Martha Radditz was somehow boiased?
Now Obama wins the second debate, not as convincingly as Mitt won the first, but he was better last night, and what do we hear from the true believers? BIAS!! Do you people evere stop whining?
Another quick question I have for the right wing excuse makers do you really believe that there will be 12 million new jobs here in America if Mitt and Paul Ryan are elected? Who will be responsible for that, the much healthier country and economy that was left for them? Do you still believe that Walker will bring those 250,000 jobs that he promised? Havent we heard this line of bull before? Its October , Walker won his bid to recall in June, where are the businesses that are waiting to come here?? Most of the country is still hiring, yet why are we losing jobs? Is it still Doyles fault? Or is it Obamas fault? Or Bushs fault? Ill bet Wislady can find a twisted way to weave a web that only blames Dems and credits repubs.
Oct 18, 2012 at 12:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
WHAT independant voters, even those that say they are , ArENT!!
Oct 17, 2012 at 11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Faux news is rated #1 because because they are a marketing machine, and are really the only mainstream network to have strong conservative spin in all their coverage. There is no question MSNBC is far left, and most the other TV news networks lean to the left. Faux having no competition, naturally is #1 because all the conservative audience flocks over to them. It has nothing to do with quality, or facts. It's simple supply and demand. If MSNBC was the only liberal outlet out there, they would be #1 rated. People tune in to networks that reassure their core beliefs. People want to be assured what they believe is true, and supported.
.
The fact that faux is touting Rommney as a sure fire winner in this is beyond laughable. The poll they will never tell you is the free market poll, where MILLIONS of $$'s are being exchanged on this race daily. If you all you Faux koolaid drinkers believe the rhetoric, I strongly encourage you to put some skin in the game then, as you can get Romney at better then 3/1 odds as I write this.
Oct 17, 2012 at 10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh my the AP fact checks, I wonder when they will start fact checking their own releases.
Oct 17, 2012 at 6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Does everything have to involve the "maniacally evil" FOX NEWS? You have FOX NEWS Derangement syndrome. Why is FOX NEWS the highest rated cable news network? Must be all you haters helping FOX NEWS with the ratings. Wish you the best with that old buddy, but you're not changing anyone's mind with your comments....You're just mad because Breitbart made himself famous by revealing Planned Parenthood for the liars and manipulators they are, leaving them with no defense. That pissed off a lot of baby murder supporters....
MJoseph...Your polls couldn't be more hot n' fresh from the debate..check your polls now buddy. CBS, CNN all of em...
As for Crowley, her career should be over. She committed journalistic suicide last night. Too bad she'll probably get a raise now. Moron.
Oct 17, 2012 at 6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Gazette needs to get THEIR facts straight. The only terrorism Obama referred to the day after the attack was that which took place in 2001. Not sept 11 2012. After the debate the moderator outright admitted that her biased and brashly stupid statement was NOT TRUE. She read the transcripts. (funny how she had them right there beside her) See for yourself. http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/...
Oct 17, 2012 at 5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
"binders full of women"....good grief...
Oct 17, 2012 at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Panama,
Actually by many people it is considered a credible source. Just because your biased sources say something, doesnt mean it is true. But I have seen your previous posts on here and to be perfectly honest, you are not very intelligent. Sorry to have to say it that way, but I believe in calling things as I see them.
Oct 17, 2012 at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
They forgot to put Candy Crowley's Stumbles:
1.She gave Barack Obama 9% more time.
2.She interrupted Mitt Romney 28 times during the debate, Obama only 9 times.
3.Her questions were picked to help Obama.
4.She asked Romney to compare himself to Bush but not Obama to Carter.
5.She corrected Mitt Romney even though she was wrong.
6.She contaminated the debate with her views.
7.Crowley's false fact check saved Obama.
8.She injected herself into the hottest part of the debate.
9.She told Mitt Romney to "sit down" during a heated exchange.
10.She showed her bias against Romney.
Oct 17, 2012 at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Breitbart is considered a very credible news source..."
-
By who, Fox News? You MUST be joking Shrek!
Oct 17, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retired,
Actually you are incorrect. Breitbart is considered a very credible news source, they lean conservative which I am sure upsets you, but still considered very credible by most everyone.
Oct 17, 2012 at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Badger -- Its easy -- if you check at the employers -- allowing each employer to verify status -- Then the illegals will get no work. They will retun home, where they can find work. We would also need the same checks for entitlements -- no entitlements for illegals.
Oct 17, 2012 at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fedup: Why not just let the illegals (self deport) like Romney says they will? I can't think of anything more ridiculous.
Oct 17, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Crowley gave Obama almost 4 minutes longer (hoping that he could say something substantive), and still he FAILED.
MO tried cheering him on with her loud clapping (against the agreed upon rules of the event), to no avail.
Oct 17, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Well -- after reading this article -- it is obvous the fact checkers need their facts checked -- they are absolutely wrong on several points and show an obvous bias to Obama. This article is a basically a total waste of a read.
The polls will show that Obama will lose indepedent voters as a result of his performance.
Oct 17, 2012 at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama most definitely won the second Presidential debate! He spoke about his many achievements in contrast to Romney’s sketchy and often disproven plans. And, Romney was way too aggressive, rude and broke the debate rules by asking questions directly of the President. Romney also demonstrated his interest in making political gains over the Libya incident, something he’s been doing since that incident was first learned of, and he avoided answering the “equal pay for equal work by women” question because he opposes equal pay. Romney wants to take women back to the 1960s, based on his plan to end Planned Parenthood and other backward aims.
Most media outlets and polls agree, Obama won.
CNN Poll: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...
CBS Poll: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-5753...
ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/oba...
LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opin...
Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/20...
Newsday: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/...
Romney knew that he lost the debate because he left the building as soon as he could, while Obama stayed for more than 30 minutes to meet and greet undecided voters.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.