.

Who Won the Presidential Debate? Republicans Say Romney 2-0

Charleston area Republicans pleased with GOP nominee's push for the truth; unhappy with moderator Candy Crowley.

For Mitt Romney fans, it wasn't even a question. Romney came away with a decisive victory in Tuesday's debate, and he's now 2-0 against President Barack Obama, according to Lowcountry Republicans.

Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester counties GOP parties gathered at Pilot's Lounge and Bistro in Summerville for a debate-watching party that featured the GOP presidential nominee and the incumbent.

While Romney won praise from his supporters, Obama was called "untruthful" and the debate moderator Candy Crowley deemed unfair. 

What won the debate for Romney?

"I'll put it this way: I thought Romney won on facts," Berkeley County Republican Party Chair Tim Callanan said. "Romney's a fighter ... (Obama) is not used to being confronted, he's used to being coddled." 

"All Romney had to do was hold his own and he definitely did that," Dorchester County Republican Chair Carroll Duncan said. "He won because he told the truth."

"(Romney) kept his cool. He didn't get flustered. But he not only had to debate the president but he had to debate Candy Crowley (moderator) as well," Charleston County Republican Party Chair Lin Bennett said. "He had his facts in order and was able to rebut Obama's statements with factual statements."

S.C. Senate GOP candidate for District 38 Sean Bennett said Romney won with his arguments on the economy.

"We deal in a global economy, and the president has shown he can't deal with a domestic economy, let alone a global economy," Bennett said.  

Bennett and Callanan felt that Romney's performance could have been improved. Bennett wanted to see the presidential contender answer the question of gender equality.

"He did what a lot of politicians do and didn't really answer it," Bennett said, adding that instead of talking about future actions, Romney relied on his past accomplishments. 

Callanan saw a missed opportunity for Romney to push the incumbent further on the issue of gas prices, which Obama said were lower when he first took office because of the looming Great Recession.

Click here to see a full transcript of the debate.

Callanan took issue with Obama's statement since it implied that since gas prices are higher now that the economy is booming.

"When you have an opportunity where a candidate absolutely steps in it — I'd have been happy if (Romney) pounced on it," Callanan said.

Praise was scant for Obama. Most Republicans felt the president was not truthful on a number of comments.

"I found him to be so untruthful when talking about Libya," Duncan said. "I simply couldn't believe it."

"I agree with (Obama) that the free enterprise system is what makes this country great, but I don't believe he believes that," Callanan said. "I am stunned at some of the things Obama said — that he's for free enterprise, that he doesn't believe government creates jobs. Then why spend the stimulus?"

"There's nothing that (Obama) said tonight that was believable," Lin Bennett said. 

She also talked about the president being "out of touch."

"When Obama started talking about gangbangers ... He didn't answer the question (on assault weapons legislation)," Bennett said. "It has nothing to do with legal guns ... He gave the impression he was totally out of touch." 

The incumbent wasn't the only one with little praise, Crowley also was heavily criticized for her role. 

The moderator would shut down Romney, but politely ask the president to stop speaking, Callanan said, adding that the pre-approved questions also showed a clear bias. 

stanley seigler October 31, 2012 at 05:57 PM
THANKS for info...but this was happeing before that terrible sandy... BTW amazing the damage done and winds (80mph) not close to hugo's 150 mph winds...
Jonathan Allen (Editor) October 31, 2012 at 08:08 PM
Stanley, Sometimes, for reasons unknown (at least unknown to me anyway) our system has a glitch and turns on a function that requires comments be approved by the editor of the Patch site where the user first registered. We don't typically use that function when we set up our articles because we like to encourage discussion among users, and having to approve every comment before it posts would be a pain with our limited staff. We also take the position that for the most part our users are responsible and mature enough to carry on conversations without us editors there to hand-hold. When that type of glitch happens, one of us has to go into our content management system and turn the comment approval feature back to automatic before user posts will show up again on the related story immediately. If you've had problems with your posts not showing up on certain stories in the past that may have been the issue. I think Greg is correct that the recent (past couple of days anyway) problems with comments not posting is probably tied to the Hurricane Sandy mess (our corporate HQ is in New York after all). However, if you have problems commenting again please shoot an email to one of the editors so that we can make sure we fix the issue, or can get our tech support people working on it if we can't handle it. Thanks, — Jonathan
stanley seigler October 31, 2012 at 09:58 PM
ATTN PATCH re: , if you have problems commenting again please shoot an email to one of the editors so that we can make sure we fix the issue, or can get our tech support people working on it if we can't handle it. well in responese to: Janet Frisco 6:07 am on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 the following submitted. NOT posted: re: Margaret Sanger PP should disassociate itself from many of it's founder's beliefs...they can be used (as janet does) to unfairly diss PP. it is difficult/impossible to reconcile her philosophy with the current PP goals...especially to those, like me, with a limited knowledge of sanger and PP... an in depth study is required to reconcile...and very few will take the time for a detailed read/study...it's much easier to quote bumper stickers that confirm our beliefs (aka biases and dogmas)... and politicians successfully pander to the bumper sticker mentality... PP is about pro-choice education and women's health. it does not advocate sanger's philosophy of, eg, racism and eugenics. OTOH some of sangers statements make sense...eg, eliminate some problems of poverty (especially in developing countries) with birth control education... opine: there'll come a day when the church and pp will have a meeting of the minds...knowledge will overcome dogma...it is called progress. then histroy will ask how could they (we) have been so stupid...
Jonathan Allen (Editor) October 31, 2012 at 11:18 PM
Janet, The Planned Parenthood teen sites do not even remotely resemble any reasonable definition of pornography (and yes, based on your comment I did visit the site and click through all the "For Teens" links). There is nothing puerile, salacious or even remotely erotic about any of the small thumbnail photos (all of which are close-ups on people's faces), the diagrams (similar ones can be found in any biology text book that covers the human body) or the blocks of text that further explain each topic on the sites (they provide straightforward, nonjudgmental answers to questions many young people have about their physiology and sexuality). If that is what you define as porn I hope for your sake you never stray into any of the internet's darker corners.
stanley seigler November 01, 2012 at 01:35 AM
@janet frisco it is becoming more difficult to even read your vitriolic hyperbole...i have long since assigned it any credibility...just use your comments as straight lines so to post facts. you do the pro-life folks a disservice...and perhaps the catholic church... maybe you should try a more measured, factual, presentation of your convictions...you might change minds...convert the pro-choice sinners...save the unborn...and the sinners from the fiery pit...butbutt; overturning roe v wade will not reduce the number of abortions...
Janet Frisco November 02, 2012 at 09:43 AM
http://www.mccl.org/page.aspx?pid=515 In case teens aren’t already aware, representatives of Planned Parenthood are frequently found speaking in schools, informing teens of its low-cost (or even free) and confidential "family planning" services. "Family planning" is a bit of an oxymoron as applied to teens. Very few of them are thinking about planning families, at least not until they are out of high school. If you visit Planned Parenthood’s Teenwire.com website you will see that their purpose is to support teen sexual activity. The site makes teens that have chosen not to become sexually active feel abnormal and pressured. They use the website to advertise their centers where teens can access all of their services, including the scheduling of an abortion (which is not free). Easy access to free and confidential contraceptives makes yielding to the temptations of sex much easier, particularly for a spontaneous teen. Once sexually active, a teenager is “hooked” by Planned Parenthood as another client for its “family planning” services. However, we all know that no contraceptive is 100 percent reliable. Every method has a failure rate (except for abstinence); therefore, unintended pregnancies will result. Contraceptive failures guarantee clients for Planned Parenthood’s more lucrative abortion business.
Janet Frisco November 02, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Jonathan, The "glitch" happens when you don't sign in before you post a comment. Then it will say "pending approval' instead of giving you the option to delete. I went on teenwire.com and it may not be your idea of pornagraphy, but it's definetely encouraging sexual activity for teens. It's a high risk activity just like taking drugs or alcohol and should not be promoted to teens by responsible adults. We don't tell young people not to take drugs, but then say if you do use a clean needle. It's the same thing with sex before marriage. The "safe-sex" methodolgy is a myth. Young people should be preparing for adult life by concentrating their energies into getting an education and forming healthy, respectful relationships with members of the opposite sex. My viewpoint obviously conflicts with yours which is not too surprising especially in the secular media. The morbid preoccupation of the present generation with unlimited sexual activity is a sign of the lowering of morality and turning away from real human achievement. The same thing happened in the Roman Empire and it's happening here.
Janet Frisco November 02, 2012 at 10:24 AM
"there you go again - you make a false claim, and after someone introduces source that disproves your false claim, you stay at the argument with a "yeah, but..." angle. You claimed she argued for it for her own benefit, that she herself wanted birth control for her own recreational purposes, and you said that she herself said so ----but she didn't do any of that. ---Reg Don't tell me what I said when it's right there in black and white. I said she talked about a few cases she knew of where women needed contraceptive drugs for other reasons, but she didn't say that was the case with her. Also, there may be "unwanted pregnancies" but there are no unwanted babies. There is a political agenda in promoting contraception and abortion which is backed by billions of dollars because these people get tax payer money which is used to reelect pro-abortion candidates like Obama. Do you think that any of the prolife groups are getting tax funding or making the huge profits that Planned Parenthood makes. They have to beg for money to promote the truth about abortion and contraceptive drugs and how these things actually harm women and kill children. We aren't talking about the "guise of faith". We are talking about the sanctity of life that the Catholic Church has always defended and it's a shame that so many Catholics, like you, aren't on board with that and still think you can claim to be Catholic.
Janet Frisco November 02, 2012 at 10:55 AM
"http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf It itself acknowledges that factors of smoking, age in first child bearing and nulliparous status are directly related ... then attempts to remove abortion from any connotation with those factors".-Reg They are just truthfully acknowledging that smoking and other factors can contribute to the incidence of cancer and other health problems. They didn't try to "remove abortion from any connotation". They are both dangerous to your health, but their main focus is the relationship between abortion/contraception and breast cancer. Go to a anti-smoking website if you want the focus to be on tobacco. "our Catholic Church supports and includes coverage of viagra in its insurance plan, even though that medication is NOT required for men to produce children"--reg Your viagra comparison is ludicrous. This shows how clueless you are about the relevance of The Church's teaching against artificial birth control. Viagra doesn't prevent contraception or cause a fertilized egg not to be able to attach to the uterine wall. It doesn't result in death. Why wouldThe Church make an issue of that? Their concern is that that every act of sexual union should be open to life.
stanley seigler November 02, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Jonathan re: 'The "glitch" happens when you don't sign in before you post a comment. Then it will say "pending approval' instead of giving you the option to delete' FYI this info maybe helpful to the techs. i dont experience above glitch. i always sign on before posting...and on occasions the submitted comments do not post even tho they list under 'what people are talking about... other times they show neither on 'what people are saying' nor under comments... sometimes after signing on and posting the 'pending approval' comes up and sometimes it doesnt... after repeated most 'submits' post...but a few never post... of course it may not be a PATCH issue...could be my silly computer playing games with me... ps. it has been 'mo better' the last couple of days...but it comes and goes pps. thanks PATCH for opportunity to discuss opines.
stanley seigler November 02, 2012 at 01:53 PM
PS ditto most of janet frisco's pro-life propaganda links...give them a little mo credit than her... neither to i give pro-choice propaganda credit w/o some fact checking... repeating: opine: there'll come a day when the church and pp will have a meeting of the minds...knowledge will overcome dogma...it is called progress. then history will ask how could they (we) have been so stupid... and perhaps a day will come that proves jefferson's opine correct: “And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.” think jefferson went too far...but have to recall what JFK said: 'At a gathering of Nobel laureates, President John Kennedy commented that never had a more impressive array of intellect been present at one time in the White House, except “when Jefferson dined alone'
reg November 02, 2012 at 03:24 PM
Um, yes - there *are* prolife groups getting federal funding, and lots of it, too. As for "promote the truth," they are typically criticizes for spreading false information on the general subjects of sex, birth and abortion, too - directly the primary funder of Congress: http://www.chsourcebook.com/articles/waxman2.pdf As for Catholicism or even faith in general, have you read me once claiming to be in favor of abortion? *NO* All that I've submitted is proof that your many claims here on this thread are FALSE (As a Catholic, I also believe lying is a sin.) You want to address the problem of abortion? Or taxes, global economy, environment, unemployment, education or any of the many other topics you've commented on? And without any sharp criticism? THEN START TELLING THE TRUTH. You haven't. You've just copied/pasted and repeated ad nauseum the completely false arguments that silly groups (TAX PAYER FUNDED) try to get dumb people to believe, and which they only use to disguise their true intentions. ("Abortion is wrong .... so let's make laws for Voter ID!" There's even a so-called religious group claiming the protection of the environment is Satan's project.)
reg November 02, 2012 at 03:26 PM
Sounds like more misdirection from you, Janet.
stanley seigler November 02, 2012 at 10:44 PM
distraction are GOP SOP...that said: re: 'viagra doesn't prevent contraception, etc...that every act of sexual union should be open to life.' right, viagra is not a form of birth control...quite the opposite...it fosters unwanted pregnancies against God's will...ie, isnt it HER/HIS's will some men shouldn't be fathers... OK, factious comment...but make as much sense as pro-lifers position HE/SHE is against safe sex and prevention of STD...and didn't approve of preventing 44% of maternal deaths in developing countries. ref: Planning and provision of birth control is called family planning. Safe sex can also help prevent transmission of sexually transmitted diseases [STD]...in developing countries has cut the number of maternal deaths by 44% (about 270,000 deaths averted in 2008) but could prevent 73% if the full demand for birth control were met. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control
Janet Frisco November 03, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Reg, This is your rebuttal, a "report" from a Democrat Congressman, Henry Waxman, reciting the propaganda that abortion is good for women's health, doesn't cause cancer, and abstinence education is misleading? As I said earlier if you disagree with a liberal, they call you a liar. Mr.Siegler, There are no pregnancies against God's will. The circumstances of a child's conception do not dimminish his human dignity even if the child is conceived in rape, incest, or the father is using Viagra although I personally think a person should accept the wisdom of nature. Wikepedia is not the ultimate authority so your last reference doesn't change my feelings that "safe sex" is a myth. The only safe sex is sex between committed married partners. It's a no brainer. In developing countries they are actually providing condoms to people who are dying of malaria for lack of a few dollars worth of quinine and starving to death. If they do get any real aid, it's often tied to their agreement to accept family planning ie sterilization and abortion. The "family planning' supports a plan of genocide in Africa and other developing third-world countries. The maternal death statistics are a total distortion to justify spending our tax dollars on birth control and filling the coffers of Planned Parenthood. They could provide prenatal care instead of using funds to provide abortion and birth control if they were truly concerned with mortality rates in these countries.
Janet Frisco November 03, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Actually I meant to say that every sexual act should be open to life. Any sexual act that is not is immoral.
Janet Frisco November 03, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Democrats claim to be pro-choice but they are really not for giving people choices. Their way or the highway. After reading the Waxman report and all the misleading information it contains, I can also say that it is totally politically motivated. The statements about Crisis Pregnancy Centers were not even accurate and he states that the "medical consensus" is that there is no link between steroidal hormones and breast cancer is totally false when there are reputable studies that acknowledge the risk throughout the medical profession such as the Guttmacher Instit. and many others who are not pro-life organizations. "The centers provided false and misleading information about a link between abortion and breast cancer. There is a medical consensus that induced abortion does not cause an increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this consensus, eight centers told the caller that having an abortion would in fact increase her risk. One center said that “all abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer in later years.” Another claimed that research shows a “far greater risk” of breast cancer after an abortion, telling the caller that an abortion would “affect the milk developing in her breasts” and that the risk of breast cancer increased by as much as 80% following an abortion." Waxman Report I can't imagine anyone taking this report serious. Abortion doesn't affect the milk as he claims one caller was told by a pregnancy center.
Janet Frisco November 03, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Breast tissue contains lobules, which are composed of a milk duct and some ductules (milk glands). Four types: 1. Type 1 lobules, Type 2, Type 3-form after lobules stop producing milk, Type 4 contain colostrum (the early milk) Before a full term pregnancy, the breast is composed of 75% Type 1 and 25% Type 2 lobules. Type 1 lobules are where 85% of all breast cancer start as ductal cancers. Thpe 2 lobules form 10-15 of breast cancers which are called lobular cancers. Types 3& 4 are resistant to cancer. Induced abortion before 32 weeks leaves more breast tissue vulnerable to cancer because of increased exposure to estrogen hormones causing increased numbers of Type 1 & 2 lobules formed during the first half of pregnancy. Perhaps the volunteer at the pregnancy center was trying to explain this or the caller didn't understand what she was trying to say. The breast tissue changes during pregnancy and abortion creates an abrupt halt to this process.
Janet Frisco November 03, 2012 at 01:00 PM
If Reg or Mr.Sieglar had to take contraception, I am sure they would prefer to be informed of any possible side effects or studies that have indicated possible side affects. Abortion and contraception are the exceptions to informed consent because you really don't believe in choices for women and definitely not for their unborn children. Dems don't believe parents should have a choice in educating their children in abstinence sex education programs, but all funding should go to what is referred to as comprehensive sex ed which basically means teaching them how to have sex. Mr.Waxman seemed to have a big problem with the $24,000,000 in government funding for abstinence-only education, but declined to mention how much gov. funding is allocated to what he favors. These are the same people that want to force us to pay for abortion-inducing contraception and sterilization. Where is "the choice" in any of this? You believe in your choice and forcing it upon the rest of us.
reg November 03, 2012 at 02:23 PM
The report was not conducted by Waxman; it was given to a committee that Waxman chaired. *Read the front page* - "Special Investigations Division" and "Prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman." And it would have said another name if another person was the chair of that committee. Also - the report doesn't say that abortion is good for a woman's health; it says that the investigation found that pro-life pregnancy clinics were providing false and misleading information.
reg November 03, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Again, what you call the "Waxman Report" was not done by Waxman. It only has his name on it as the recipient, since he was chair of the committee it was issued to. Oh, and by the way? Your mention of Guttmacher Institute in a positive light - did you know that it's a division of Planned Parenthood?
reg November 03, 2012 at 02:37 PM
these changes that you refer to don't occur until latter second trimester, though. Abortion is only legal in the first trimester, unless the woman's life is at risk. I see that you're using the very general term of "before 32 weeks," though - and that's misleading.
reg November 03, 2012 at 02:45 PM
Just like every medical procedure or medication, a patient is legally entitled to know each and every risk. And not just by their doctors, either; take a look at any Rx ad - all possible risks must be listed. (Of course, the pharmaceutical companies don't want to do that ... and which political party gets all the donations from that industry?) THERE IS NO EXCEPTION FOR ABORTION OR BIRTH CONTROL. As for your comments on sex education - as I've already said on this thread, I think you should take up your own personal circumstance with the school. The law says that parental approval is required; if yours was not adequately sought .. BLAME THE SCHOOL, and not a political party, especially when that political party itself is on your side in this case. (And as for the results of that class, you have that mixed up, I must say - countless studies find that children in comprehensive sex ed, which is of medical foundation, retain virginity longer, while others in abstinence only have much higher risks of STD and teenage pregnancy. Here's one of those studies - http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/12/19/sex-ed-extends-virginity/1679.html) And you're still going on about Waxman, insinuating he did this study or he requested it; FALSE - he was the chair of the committee, so his name automatically appears on the document.
stanley seigler November 03, 2012 at 05:24 PM
re: There are no pregnancies against God's will you know this how?...and what else do you know of HER/HIS will... a statement: 'there are no acts of safe sex education against HER/HIS will (ie, God approves safe sex education)'... is as creditable as your statement re pregnancies and God's will. IE/in sum; opine: your statements re God's will, like many of your opines, lack credibility, logic and practicality... opine: history will judge the true believer pro-lifer as it has judged the segregationist...it called progress...see jefferson's quote in above post. re: 'the wisdom of nature' does nature's wisdom trump HIS/HER will...are acts of nature HER/HIS will...eg, did God or nature will 'sandy' the hurry-cane...
stanley seigler November 03, 2012 at 06:17 PM
re: 'Any sexual act that is not [open to life] is immoral.' 'birth control' is immoral...'actually meant to say that'...do you really mean/believe this...i'm not privy to folks' (including catholics) bedrooms, but bet a lot of them commit immoral acts and thus condemned to hell...and for sure,for sure, homosexuals are. BTW just what is the catholic church's (any church's) position on birth control... sigh...
Janet November 07, 2012 at 09:35 AM
Abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy. Women are not being told that their are serious side-effects to abortion even if the prescription inserts do list possible ones, most people do not read them. They trust their health care professional. I brought up my son's experience to illustrate that young people are being subjected to sex education that their is an active debate about it's effectiveness. Your web reference and your "countless" others are just a few of the ones in favor. I blame Planned Parenthood and other agencies who want to take over the job of parents in teaching their children values and often do so without the knowledge of their parents not just in my case but in the majority. Their sex education model is based on the research of Alfred Kinsey and his sex institute which later gave rise to SEICUS which is the government agency that controls the content of the sex ed material. Kinsey was a zoologist who did perverted studies on children as young as 3 mos old. He also garnered much of his "data" from studies involving prison inmates. He came up with bizarre conclusions based on this research and people accepted it because he was a sceintist. Waxman commissioned the report and used random telephone calls directed at pregnancy centers as part of his data that supported his political party's agenda. Do you have any idea on how much money Planned Parenthood spent on negative ads against Romney in the last election? It's blood money.
Janet November 07, 2012 at 09:49 AM
Abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy. Women are not being told that their are serious side-effects to abortion and most women do not read the inserts.They trust their health care professional. I brought up my son's experience to illustrate that young people are being subjected to sex education in which there is an active debate concerning it's effectiveness and ethics. Your web reference and your "countless" others are just a few of the ones in favor. I blame Planned Parenthood and other goverment agencies who want to take over the job of parents in teaching their children values and often do so without the knowledge of their parents not just in my case but in the majority. Their sex education model is based on the research of Alfred Kinsey and his sex institute which later gave rise to SEICUS which is the government agency that controls the content of the sex ed material. Kinsey was a zoologist who did perverted studies on children as young as 3 mos old. He also garnered much of his "data" from studies involving prison inmates. He came up with bizarre conclusions based on this "research" and people accepted it because he was a scientist.
Janet November 07, 2012 at 09:50 AM
And you're still going on about Waxman, insinuating he did this study or he requested it; FALSE - he was the chair of the committee, so his name automatically appears on the document.--Reg Why is Waxman's name on the document if he didn't request it? I didn't say he did the study. His name's on it for some reason unless you can tell me otherwise. I don't put my name on something if I don't support it and neither did he. It's part of a political agenda that democrats have to go along with to win elections, but they are often "personally opposed". That's called being a hypocrite. They pander to the desires of their constituents and give them what they want regardless if it is good for them or the country because they are basically self-serving politicians who get rich and stay in power by doing so.
Janet Frisco November 09, 2012 at 11:50 AM
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-hhs-grooming-children-for-sex/ Good article about the parallels between Obama and Kinsey corrupting our children.
Janet Frisco November 09, 2012 at 11:58 AM
God wills all of us into being because he is the creator of all. He formed us in our mother's wombs. Any sexual act which blocks that is immoral. Even if most Catholics are using it that doesn't change the fact that The Catholic Church says it is intrinsically evil. Most people know that they are going against Catholic teaching, but they do it anyway. The Church can only propose, it cannot impose. Everyone has a free will to choose good or evil. The HHS Contraceptive Mandate is violating the 1st. Ammendment in forcing us to pay for and provide these drugs and services against our conscience in our own institutions and providing only a very narrow exemption that exclude most ministries. If they serve non-Catholics they cannot be exempt for one. Jesus and the Apostles would not qualify for the exemption under the current guidelines.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something