More readers react to last night's debate:
Romney may be the most cynical candidacy I've ever seen, topping even the distraction-fest that was McCain-Palin. Romney's sudden move to the center (and last night to the left of Obama) was based on a calculation that American's wouldn't know any better and/or wouldn't bother to look at anything Romney said or did in the last 18 months. I know politicians have always made hay betting on the ignorance of the average American, but this takes things to a new low.
Another:
I live in Oregon but I'm home in the Boston area visiting family. While out driving, after the debate, I tuned into Dan Rea's radio show on WBZ. I was shocked by the parade of callers who grudgingly awarded Mr. Obama a win in the debate because he had been masterful, forthcoming, knowledgeable and articulate – and then said they would vote for Romney anyway. They were actually sympathetic toward ol' Mitt because they said the president had an unfair advantage as commander-in-chief.
One caller said Mr. Romney "isn't privy to the inside information the president is." So Romney gets a pass from a few heretofore undecided Boston voters because he couldn't be expected to know as much about foreign policy. WTF?
This goes beyond "low-information voter." This twisted logic has to be fallout from the Fox propaganda machine. I cannot otherwise fathom why any voter can watch that chameleon Romney and not come away with even a kernel of understanding that he's being lied to.
Another points to a segment on MSNBC:
Steve Schmitt, whom I usually like, was praising the political wisdom of Romney for rejecting McCain's neoconservative screed of early yesterday. Schmitt also acknowledged that every position McCain took was Romney's position until 9:00 p.m. last night. But Schmitt said it was politically brilliant. Then Rachel Maddow really went off. She said something to this effect (rough paraphrase): "It's not like he rejected his past position on light rail; 68,000 people died in these wars! And then Romney denied he ever rejected his past position. He pretended these were his positions all along. This is now a character question, and it's disqualifying for me."
Another:
The pure cynicism of this blows me away. An election is not a market test; it's choosing a person and policies to run the country. Parroting the president and only saying a few stupid things (he can see Iran's path to the sea from his backyard), doesn't count as holding his own. And being a shamless, transparent liar is a character disqualification.
Another:
Last night, Romney said, "Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea." I know it's less memorable than bayonets or binders, but why is no one mentioning this?
John Green mentioned it through the above illustration. More reader feedback here.
The Dish 