The Secret Debates

I’ll be following the debate on Twitter tonight, most likely and maybe popping in here for the occasional commet. But if you think tonight’s debate will be substantive, check this out:

There are the public rules for each presidential debate — how long the candidates get for each answer, how long they get to respond — and then there are the secret rules their campaigns agreed to in a memorandum of understanding with the Commission on Presidential Debates. That memorandum is now public, posted by Time’s Mark Halperin. What did the Obama and Romney campaigns demand?

Among other things: no reaction shots, no ad libbing of questions, no follow-ups (on threat of mic being cut off), no shout outs (probably a good thing), no accessories like powerpoint, no direct questions, no clapping. In other words, this is to be a 90-minute campaign commercial and don’t you forget it.

The CPD has already proven their uselessness many times. They’ve banned third party candidates and insured that no one will get a Bernard Shaw type question. But they have long passed the point of subservience into the bent-over position. The CPD exists for no other reason than to give the candidates the platform to say what they want without any fear of an actual, you know, debate breaking out.

At some point, we have to rebel against this bullshit. At some point, one of these things is going to degenerate into an actual town hall meeting when the questioners simply refuse to comply with this nonsense and start deviating from their prepared remarks.

I mean, they can’t audit all of us.

Comments are closed.

  1. Kimpost

    My post was just me testing how to embed youtube clips. I’m sure there’s an easier way (since even CM manages *s*), but as far a I could tell one needs to:

    1. Insert the link.
    2. Wreck it so that WordPress doesn’t recognize it as a link. I did that by adding random letters before “http” in the link.
    3. Post the comment.
    4. Edit the comment and fix the link.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Poosh

    I disagree, I think this is how it should be. I find the idea of TV debates dubious at any rate (though how American election campaigns are fought and funded seems bizarre and undermocatic anyhow, though I couldn’t offer a better way presently) – the medium of TV means get one “member of the general public” asking a dodgy question that is designed to make one candidate look bad, of which the candidate finds it difficult to answer due to the loaded nature of the question or the question being grounded on false facts that the candidate isn’t even aware of (so he can’t even comment on their falsifiability) and it could be deadly.

    The only way to be substantive in a debate is to argue in a Socratic manner or what not, which is very difficult in a cheap tv debate, though Romney somehow managed to do quite well well. (Ryan failed because he was essentially left with a “well, these are the facts, look them up yourself” against Biden’s insanity and “come on, trust me!” emotional tactics).

    There are good reasons for some of these rules, such as no clapping.

    Thumb up 3

  3. Poosh

    I mean, they can’t audit all of us.

    The BBC audit and manage to rig the political Question Time tv show audiences every time, despite using an “independent” company to pick audience members. It’s always rigged in favour of the left, often heavily.

    Thumb up 0

  4. Hal_10000 *

    Poosh, I seem to recall seeing Blair on one of these meet the public things and they *grilled* him on Iraq, some outright calling him a liar. I also remember Thatcher getting into it quite vociferously with a telephone caller over the Belgrano sinking.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Poosh

    Yes, the ignorant, uneducated tools in the audience called Blair a liar. And people who were likewise not educated or simply idiots, who saw that program, would more than likely (human nature being what it is and most people being herd-types) assume Blair was a liar merely because A) it seemed to be asserted by a majority and B) it was strongly asserted with passion.

    It didn’t matter that Blair had facts and logic on his side. And of course the BBC rigged the audience to serve its political agenda.

    But that was not a debate in this sense. For the first time ever in the last election did we do TV debates for the elections, USA style. They were a terrible mistake imo. In the UK, and rightly so methinks, television ads are limited and spread between all parties, so the power of money (and the undemocratic damage money can cause) are somewhat minimised – which isn’t the case in the US, where the TV debates could at least give a candidate outspent in X state a fairer fighting chance.

    Thumb up 3

  6. Poosh

    I don’t fancy Romney’s chances, so to speak …. lest we forget (I didn’t know this before)

    At CNN’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas two weeks back, moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced several citizen questioners as “ordinary people, undecided voters.” But they later turned out to include a former Arkansas Democratic director of political affairs, the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada and a far left anti-war activist who’d been quoted in newspapers lambasting Harry Reid for his failure to pull out of Iraq.

    Standard liberal operating procedures…

    Thumb up 4

  7. richtaylor365

    Wow, what a great debate strategy, keep calling Romney a liar, yes, the actual Obama is back, offer nothing of substance but call your opponent a schmuck, nice.

    Thumb up 13

  8. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  9. richtaylor365

    Attempting to steamroll the female moderator may not play well with women. Good that he didn’t go ahead and fire her though. Trump would have. ;-)

    True, Obama should stop it immediately.

    Thumb up 11

  10. Poosh

    wow, didn’t know that there are less jobs today than when Obama took office, even CNN agrees. Shocking!

    Romney is getting bogged down in details and numbers, not a way to do a TV debate!

    Thumb up 2

  11. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  12. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Poosh

    Bain has actually created ample jobs in the United Kingdom (not outsourcing) and I think that’s swell. Romney is so good at creating jobs, he even creates jobs in Great Britain.

    Obama said that tax cuts on the rich widened the deficit, this is just f*cking shocking. This is just a joke.

    And Obama just flat out lied and said he ended the Iraq war? He has no shame.

    Thumb up 5

  14. richtaylor365

    Why is it that when Romeny speaks I see the clock in the background, when Obama speaks there is no clock on the screen? stinkin’ democrat camera people.

    Thumb up 6

  15. Poosh

    “You don’t turn national security into a political issue” – Obama.

    But fucking over British intelligence operatives and sources, to make Obama look good, is just dandy? I have nothing but contempt for this bastard. Some things can never be forgiven.

    This comment from the man who had a photo-op whilst he watched Bin Laden’s fate. Pathetic.

    Thumb up 9

  16. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  17. Xetrov

    Obama –

    “You don’t turn national security into a political issue…No, that was not me saying I supported an ad saying I killed Bin Laden, Next topic!”

    Thumb up 9

  18. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Xetrov

    Romney: “Incomes are down because unemployment is so high”
    WTF? How does employing people raise the rate of pay?

    1 – More people out of work but looking = less demand for employers to offer compensation for positions that used to pay more.

    2 – More people settling for part time positions, or positions they are over-qualified for (“under employment”).

    Thumb up 5

  20. Xetrov

    Sullivan’s full of shit CM, and you should know it. Obama was talking about 9/11 right before he made that sentence, it was not in regard to the Libya attack.

    Thumb up 5

  21. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  22. Xetrov

    Until there’s an actual shortage of workers in a particular field there’s no wage pressure for employers. In most fields there are never shortages.

    A shortage of workers would cause…an increase in pay rates.

    As far as what I actually said – if you don’t think it relates to lower wages, I guess you should tell my HR team that considering they just hired people to my old job making significantly less than I did in the job.

    How does that affect wage rates?

    I’m out. You’re being intentionally obtuse.

    Thumb up 5

  23. Poosh

    Sky News people say the Romney was corrected by Moderator clip on Libya and Romney is going to be played over and over …. which I don’t understand. The entire point is Obama knew it was a terrorist act right from the start, then backed down and said it wasn’t, and then said quietly, actually, it was a terrorist attack.

    Thumb up 1

  24. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  25. West Virginia Rebel

    Dumbest question: “Why are you different than George Bush?” Er, because he’s not president anymore?

    Personally I think Obama was actually stronger this time around. Romney seemed more on defense as a result but came back strong himself most of the time.

    Thumb up 4

  26. CM

    Sullivan’s full of shit CM, and you should know it. Obama was talking about 9/11 right before he made that sentence, it was not in regard to the Libya attack.

    He specifically mentioned Benghazi after 9/11:

    Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is
    still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. And today the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but ourmemories of them linger on.

    I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the
    work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of
    those who loved them back home.

    Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

    As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

    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.

    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/12/transcript-read-president-obamas-remarks-on-american-deaths-in-libya-attack/

    Thumb up 0

  27. Hal_10000 *

    To support CM, if you read the President’s Rose Garden comments, he clearly calls the Benghazi incidents an attack and did not mention the video once. That was, to me, the weirdest part of the debate. The only conservative “undecided” voter question was a perfect set for Romney and he hit it right into the net.

    Obama won this one, in my view. It wasn’t the wipeout Debate 1 was, but it may be enough for him. it will certainly rally his base.

    Thumb up 0

  28. Poosh

    And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

    There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

    That’s Obama, at his 25 Sept speech.

    The whole point of the Rose Garden is that Obama seemed to acknowledged it was a terrorist attack (though he did say “act of terror”) before moving to deny, then moving to actually it was a terrorist strike, to moving to, there were NO protests outside the embassy.

    Thumb up 6

  29. Poosh

    Obama won the debate as a tv-debate, i.e how it looked and how it will be spun by the media.

    I’ll assume he lost on facts, given that he is, in fact, a liar. But Romney didn’t do that well. He did as he was expected to do in the original debate i.e he did as one expected, that is, just to hold his own. Which isn’t good enough you could argue. The questions were quite dubious (the gun one, wtf) but that was always going to be the case. Romney trying to explain economics on TV was never going to work but bless him for trying.

    Thumb up 4

  30. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  31. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  32. Poosh

    After reading the Rose Garden transcript it’s actually appears, as Romney suggested in fact in the debate, that Obama considered the attacks not terrorist attacks (attacks of war) but as Romney suggested, the results of the protests over the VIDEO.

    And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.

    We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.

    The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so,
    and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.

    But we now know, as Romney knew from day one, the attacks were motivated terrorist attacks, planned and prepared well in advance.

    Thumb up 3

  33. Poosh

    That about says it all. You don’t even care what the reality is.

    ONCE ONLY AM I REPLYING to your dumbobamassary. I’ll break this down in basic logic for you.

    Problem: I am not educated in every single issue spoken of, nor have the time to/ or will investigate each and every single claim.

    Premise 1: Obama is a liar (I know this to be true from past investigations)
    Premise 2: Obama, in the debate, has lied several times about subjects I am aware of/ versed in.

    Conclusion: In regards to the subjects I am ignorant of / do not have the time to investigate, I INFER that he was lying or being misleading regarding those subjects as well.

    Now here’s a f*cking link for you so you can learn what inductive logic is, because you don’t know what it is.

    Thumb up 4

  34. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  35. Hal_10000 *

    The thing about the Rose Garden remarks is that they were part of a week of blundering and obfuscation. Obama did, narrowly, call them an act of terror. Romney, by getting tangled up in the specific verbiage, flubbed the larger point. This was a set-up issue for him, asking by the only conservative in the audience. And instead of spiking the ball, he six-packed himself.

    Thumb up 3

  36. Poosh

    I’m out. You’re being intentionally obtuse.

    I’m out. He can’t even read his own f*cking transcript he posted (AS USUAL)

    (And I INDUCED it, not deduced – you twit, even linked to you a godamn link so you can educate yourself)

    As with others, I’m out.

    Thumb up 5

  37. Poosh

    Yeah I can go with that, Hal_10000. Though reading the transcript it does seem the moderator was wrong, and Romney was in fact right. One of the commentators on Sky got a text from someone who said the moderator was wrong, and now that I can see what Obama said, have to say, Moderator was wrong. Damage done though. Too late.

    “Romney, by getting tangled up in the specific verbiage, flubbed the larger point.” – Hal

    Yep. the clear point is even in the full swing of the war on terror, we never suffered such kinds of losses at Sept 2012. 6 Harriers destroyed, Ambassador taken out.

    Thumb up 3

  38. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  39. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  40. Kimpost

    Obama won this debate, he was articulate and a gazillion times clearer than the last time. He got his message through, which he failed miserably with during the first debate. Romney got many of his points through as well. Obama certainly didn’t do to him what he did to Obama. This was more like what I expected the first debate to be. Two slick politicians delivering their respective talking points.

    The format SUCKED! I wanted to see them get in to it a lot more, but they weren’t allowed to. I also think that Romney would have benefited from such. Someone needs to take the control of the debates away from the parties.

    Thumb up 1

  41. Kimpost

    Regardess of the Rosegarden speech, I think it’s safe to say that the Obama administration fumbled the aftermath of the Benghazi incident. The administration requiring a full week before getting their stories straight is pretty lame…

    I’m not jumping on them for possibly failing to address security concerns, though, since that’s typically not the presidents direct job. Of course, he could have micro managed it, but normally I’d just blame him for possibly hiring the wrong people, but nothing more.

    Shit happens all the time, and the president (any president) rarely is directly responsible. I guess I’m pretty cynical about shit like this. The next president will have to watch thousands of people die too. People that wouldn’t have had to, if the security had been better. Even after disregarded security concerns…

    Thumb up 2

  42. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  43. CM

    Regardess of the Rosegarden speech, I think it’s safe to say that the Obama administration fumbled the aftermath of the Benghazi incident. The administration requiring a full week before getting their stories straight is pretty lame…

    Totally fumbled it. It was very lame. And weird, because I don’t see what they were trying to do.
    I also don’t understand why people seem to be twisting themselves in knots over the meaning of the word “terror”.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Kimpost

    Where is all the concern from the right-wing about Romney’s ongoing inability to explain how he provides these tax cuts without significantly raising the deficit?

    That actually surprises me too. It’s also telling for how much they dislike Obama, because Romney’s 5-8 trillion of cuts/more spending is insane in its secrecy. Show us the numbers, already.

    Which loopholes are they going to close? How much of the financing comes from a mere hope of growth? Saying that they’ll sort the “details” (i.e. everything) out with congress later, really should be unacceptable. Surely that’s a negative even for those who will vote for him. It’s just that they think that Obma’s worse…

    Thumb up 0

  45. Mississippi Yankee

    I’m not jumping on them for possibly failing to address security concerns, though, since that’s typically not the presidents direct job. Of course, he could have micro managed it, but normally I’d just blame him for possibly hiring the wrong people, but nothing more.

    You do realize that would point to his SoS and he needs not only her, her husband and all of the Clinton friends if he thinks he has any shot at re-election.

    Politically her taking blame has no down side. She only wanted credentials of her office, he won’t ask her to resign and come hell or high water she’s out of there come January anyway. Accountability is not a hallmark of the left.

    Thumb up 1

  46. CM

    Romney said Obama quadrupled regulations on businesses.

    Bloomberg, Oct 2011:

    Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News.

    Politico, March 2012:

    A top White House official Tuesday defended the administration against charges that it’s trigger-happy with regulations, saying that fewer final regs have been issued under President Barack Obama than during the same period under George W. Bush.

    “In terms of just the facts, the Obama administration’s issued fewer final rules in the first three years than the [George W.] Bush administration did in the first three years,” White House regulatory chief Cass Sunstein told the roughly 70-strong audience at a POLITICO breakfast event at the W Hotel in downtown Washington.

    While Sunstein didn’t give specific numbers to back up his assertion at the time, the White House later provided data to POLITICO that 931 final rules were reviewed by the White House and issued by executive agencies under Bush – and 886 under Obama.

    Where does ‘quadrupled’ come from?

    The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which describes itself as “the leading small business association representing small and independent businesses,” does a regular survey of small businesses. One question that has been asked since 1973 is, “What is the single most important problem your business faces?” The answer choices are inflation, taxes, government regulation, poor sales, quality of labor, interest costs, health insurance costs, the cost of labor, and other matters. Interestingly, the single largest response is “poor sales,” the choice of 30 percent of respondents since President Obama was sworn in (averaging the 10 quarters between early 2009 and Spring 2011). That seems to accord with slack demand as the key concern of small businesses.

    It turns out that small businesses have always complained about regulation and taxes and not especially so under Obama. For instance, the share concerned about regulation under Obama (13.9 percent) is not substantially higher than under George W. Bush (9.9 percent and 11.0 percent) or Ronald Reagan’s second term (12.8 percent). There is also less concern about regulation under Obama than under Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush. Recall also that there was rapid employment growth in the second Clinton term, so high concerns about regulation (which rose steadily from Reagan’s first term to their highest level in Clinton’s first term) are not necessarily associated with poor employment growth.

    There’s a similar story on taxes. Sure, there are 20.8 percent of respondents on average in the Obama years who see taxes as the primary problem facing their business. Yet, that intensity of concern about taxes is not all that different than under George W. Bush and is less than the presidential terms from the first Reagan term through Clinton’s second term. It is hard to find a recent spike in concern about regulations or taxes that supports a story of escalating uncertainty or fears of regulations holding back the economy.

    http://www.epi.org/blog/regulatory-uncertainty-jobs-problem/

    Thumb up 0

  47. salinger

    Romney lost the all the women’s votes he gained after the last debate. “Binders full of women” is going to stick. Reminiscent of the books used by the splinter Mormon groups that old geezers use to select sister wives. Why couldn’t he just say – women deserve equal pay for equal work?

    As for the whole Benghazi missteps – all the majority will remember is Mitt being corrected on live TV and the audience applauding. I predict that gaffe will lower the heat on the administration’s mistakes. Meanwhile – the perception that the Republican ticket cannot make their economic numbers work becomes more credible each time they duck any direct question about it.

    Thumb up 0

  48. InsipiD

    CM, quit spamming.

    The thing about this debate that was painful was seeing two guys who weren’t acting like I’d want a president to act. It was especially bad when Obama was lecturing Romney about things that a president doesn’t do while acting catty in the way that a president wouldn’t do. This debate was total bullshit.

    Thumb up 8

  49. Poosh

    I thought Romney’s comment on women was excellent for a non heavy right wing audience.

    I personally, would not, want to hear what Romney did and said, which is go out and find women to fill his quota because it wasn’t politically correct enough for him. I didn’t like that he went out and convinced women to apply for him. I think that’s far beyond the remit of his position at the time.

    Thumb up 2

  50. Poosh

    What a surprise, Obama’s True Regulatory Record.

    In summary: On face value, Obama has enacted fewer rules than Bush during their respective first three years. However,

    1 – Obama’s percent change in rule-making far exceeds Bush’s first three years and last three years.
    Obama has enacted more economically significant regulations compared to Bush (both in real numbers as well as a share of total rules).

    2 – Obama’s net regulatory burden far exceeds Bush’s by a ratio of 6 to 1.

    3 – Obama has presided over the highest level of regulatory agency outlays (i.e. spending) and employment.

    As elections near, politicians love to rewrite history; however, most of the time the facts just do not line up. After examining the “footnotes,” we clearly see Obama has further increased the regulatory burden we all must live under. Instead of burdening the economy to achieve some sort of paternalistic social goal, government should enact smart regulation – regulation that corrects the market failures’ problem, not its symptoms, while fostering economic growth and maximizing social efficiency.

    Thumb up 3

  51. Seattle Outcast

    I think the debate proved a number of things last night; about CM…

    1) He truly doesn’t know what is going on in the USA, but only gets his information from the MSM during election cycles. As always, American culture is a mystery to him

    2) It is now painfully obvious why non-Americans don’t get to vote in US elections

    3) CM envisions himself as the new Sullivan or Kos, only dumber

    4) The pretense of being neutral in any fashion is over completely. You can’t spend the time to make approximately a zillion posts about a “debate” in which you fawn completely over one side and ignore all their factual errors.

    5) He should take his meds on schedule

    6) Jim should institute a posting limit – the spamming this thread got from CM was stupid and there was no point in even bothering to read it any more. All CM idiocy, all the time.

    Thumb up 11

  52. Xetrov

    I give the debate to Candy, with an assist from Romney. Trying to fact-check (even when you’re wrong, he NEVER outright called it a terrorist attack in the Rose garden) for one of the participants DURING THE DEBATE? Are you shitting me? Let me guess, CM – She’s not showing her bias when she did that in your eyes?

    BTW, I think CM set the record for most “Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.” posts in a single thread.

    Thumb up 6

  53. Xetrov

    Romney asked Crowley to do the fact check.

    Where?

    MS. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to reply just quickly to this, please.

    MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.

    MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

    MR. ROMNEY: I — I — 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.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.

    MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.

    So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

    MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

    MR. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

    MS. CROWLEY: They did.

    MR. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —

    MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, I’m — I’m happy to —

    MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — I —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.

    MS. CROWLEY: I know you — absolutely. But I want — I want to move you on.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, I’m happy to do that too.

    MS. CROWLEY: And also, people can go to the transcripts and —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I just want to make sure that —

    MS. CROWLEY: — figure out what was said and when.

    Thumb up 2

  54. richtaylor365

    It just sounds like whinging.

    What it sounds like to you is totally irrelevant, the simple incontrovertible fact ( like water is wet) is that the MSM is invested and in the tank for your buddy, the line at which they won’t stoop any lower to provide advantage keeps getting lowered. In the history of presidential debates have you ever heard of a moderator coming to the defense of one of the candidates when he was sputtering? Absolutely shameful.

    I think it’s safe to say that the Obama administration fumbled the aftermath of the Benghazi incident.

    Interesting choice of words, fumbled, but spoken like a true Obama apologist. Any objective view would use different words, “mislead”, “duplicity” and “incompetence”. To think that the State Department was getting intel in real time when the attack happened, they knew immediately it was a terrorist attack, to think that even the Libyan government the very next day labeled it at such, to think that they were caught so off guard so unprepared even prematurely pulling out the security detail, to think that for two solid weeks they (Obama, Clinton, Rice) were all speaking from the same play book and regurgitating the same talking points about some spontaneous gathering spurred on by a silly video, to think that it took them 3 weeks before the FBI or any investigative body was allowed to see what happened (A CNN reporter found the ambassador’s diary, some preservation of the crime scene, nice police work there). They all knew immediately what they had, yet, all in the name of furthering a lie (namely that AQ is “on their heels” because Obama is a such an awesome terror warrior and all) they continued the ruse, Rice going on all the Sunday shows and Obama going before the UN and continued to lie. But you keep calling it a fumble, it removes all the personal responsibility for their actions.

    Thumb up 8

  55. Poosh

    This was more like what I expected the first debate to be. Two slick politicians delivering their respective talking points.

    My thoughts as well.

    Well there you go, Obama lied, now even Crowley seems to admit. CM still talking out of his arse, not able to even read source transcripts, which is why I can’t be bothered really. Such a bold faced lie by Obama. I mean it’s brain-meltingly clear Obama is not calling the assassination a terrorist attack.

    I think we’ve all started to figure out the Obama Admin were well aware of a terrorist attack prior to 9/11 and did nothing to stop it. They rejected calls to beef up security. Then when the shit hit the fan, they insisted it was a lynch mob reacting to a 12 minute video on youtube. Romney called bullshit. Now even Democrats are calling bullshit (correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t f*cking Kerry even calling bullshit on Obama?) and now the liboos are trying to rewrite history. As if we can’t LITERALLY watch a video of Obama giving the speech, clearly stating these attacks were the result of the video (thus not acts of terrorism, i.e TRAINED TERRORISTS FIRING ROCKETS AT WEAK POINTS IN THE EMBASSY.

    This arsehole Obama claimed he ended the Iraq war. No. The SURGE which you opposed ended it. How are we doing in Afghanistan compared to Bush’s Iraqi surge eh?

    Thumb up 5

  56. Hal_10000 *

    I think Doug Mataconis hits the right points here: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/about-that-libya-question-in-last-nights-debate/

    By getting tangled up in the President’s words — again, Romney focusing on attitude and verbiage rather than policy — he missed the bigger point which was why our security was lax.

    You can read details of the attack here:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/the-amazing-story-of-what-happened-in-libya/263597/

    The response was more on than we had thought but still pales in comparison to what we were faced with.

    Thumb up 0

  57. Poosh

    Romney did miss the greater point, that on Obama’s watch things that never happened in the middle of the war on terror, happened on the fucking anniversary of 9/11. Shit happens in war, mistakes are made – but this is not a reason Obama can give due to his postures and clear presentation of himself as someone who is winding down the war. On his watch the war escalated it seemed. Obama likes to show off his dubious use of drone-warfare, but it seems terrorists are now in a position of apparent comfort. Romney should have said these things, but he didn’t, and perhaps can’t. Because he’s not Newt. He has little working knowledge of the war on terror. Did we all not know this though? This is an unfortunate trade off.

    Thumb up 5

  58. Hal_10000 *

    No response, Hal? Where did Romney ask for the fact check? Transcript above.

    Yes, Obama did call for the fact check. My mistake. However, Romney tried to get the President to state clearly that he called them acts of terror in the Rose Garden conference, thinking this was going to be a big fact check to him:

    think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

    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.

    But it also highlights the problem: Romney got focused on the controversy of what the President said and ignored what the President did, which was have insufficient security in a chaotic nation. it was a Blackhawk Down level of fail and Romney missed it. This is probably because Romney, like the President, doesn’t really have a foreign policy: more of a foreign policy attitude. So words and “showing weakness” are far more important than actual deeds.

    And no one asked why the hell we got involved in Libya to begin with.

    Thumb up 0

  59. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  60. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  61. Xetrov

    You’re still wrong. Even Candy came out and said Romney had it right immediately after the debate. By all means, Keep digging.

    Yep, ODS (and ODS by proxy) is getting stronger by the day. No surprise there.

    Wouldn’t that be CMDS?

    Thumb up 5

  62. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  63. Dave D

    It’s ODS by proxy.

    So you’re admitting you’re a mindless shill for bHo incapable of giving the other side any credit. Got it.

    Thumb up 4

  64. richtaylor365

    Wouldn’t that be CMDS?

    :)

    CM, I really am surprised you are not as outraged as the rest of us, you should be if you were at all objective. What Crowley did last night, if this was a boxing match it would be analogous to a referee punching one of the other fighters. It does not matter that afterwards she admitted she was wrong and Romney was right, the damage was done. Where everyone reads the lie on the front page, no one reads the retraction the next day printed at the bottom of page 37, you should know this.

    You are supposedly big on context, did you read or listen to that entire Rose Garden speech? If you did then you would know damn well that what Obama was referring to with his “No acts of terror” remark was the original 9/11/01 attack, that was what he was talking about. When specifically talking about this attack later on he did the usual two step of condemns acts/increase security/working with the Libyan government to bring those to justice, yadda yadda, but then instead of saying anything rejecting all forms of terrorism, he launches into his apology about those that denigrate the religious beliefs of others and mentions the goofy video.

    Honestly, you throw out the predictable ODS charge left and right, but what you suffer from is just as debilitating.

    Thumb up 6

  65. ilovecress

    I think what Candy is saying is basically what Hals been saying – that on the issue of the Benghazi attack, Romney had a point – but by claiming specifically that he didn’t call it an act of terror, he fluffed it.

    Which is one thing that I find weird. Romney chose the one thing that the president did say. He used the exact words. If he had used any other words he’d have been right. Romney had to work really quite hard to be wrong on this one.

    Thumb up 0

  66. Poosh

    If you’re going to make accusations, back them up. Otherwise don’t make them. Don’t keep felling back on your lame “I can’t be bothered for the next 5 minutes until this blows over” bullshit. It’s transparent and weak.

    To quote Mulder in Zoolander

    “Are you serious? I just told you that a moment ago?”

    In a thread where everyone is saying how the transcript shows Obama lied, the one you linked to … you can’t see how these accusations are backed up … in the transcript that I. Literally. Quote…. you know. I’m making things worse just by writing. I’ll just stop.

    You can’t understand your own goddamn links. Which is why it’s pointless talking to you.

    Thumb up 4

  67. ilovecress

    Am I in bizarre world, or are we talking about 2 different things?

    ROMNEY: I think (it’s) interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
    OBAMA: That’s what I said.
    ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?
    OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
    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.

    Rose Garden transcript.

    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.

    Is it your argument that Obama wasn’t referring to Benghazi there? That he spent 5,000 words talking about Benghazi, then said “by the way, on an unrelated note, acts of terror won’t be tolerated” – and then went on to talk about Benghazi for another 1000 words?

    Or is it that Obama didn’t actually use the words “it was an” before the words “act of terror”?

    Or am I really missing something here?

    —–

    Again, the thing I find weird is that Romney used the exact wrods that Obama did say. Now, if he’d have accused Obama of not placing the blame at the feet of Terrorists, then I think he’d have cleaned his clock. I’m wondering if it was simply a case of Romney getting his lines mixed up.

    Thumb up 1

  68. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  69. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  70. CM

    BTW, Obama was wrong – Bush did call for Medicare vouchers. And it wasn’t accurate for him to claim that Romney was the “standard-bearer” for the Republican Party in 2009 on immigration reform.
    There are two examples of Obama’s lies/untruths.

    Thumb up 0

  71. Poosh

    Romney, when he said “terror” he, as you can understand, meant terrorism i.e reality. In the speech Obama is not referring to terrorist attacks. His use of “terror” is ambiguous and seems to be a general description of various things, including soldiers dying in Iraq. You have to read the entire segment.

    Q:… we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: … nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

    So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security … Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again…

    Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening. [ So Obama, here, is the first to suggest that someone politicised this event, and used it to “score points”.]

    And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.

    MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I got to move us along. Governor?

    MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Kerry, for your question. It’s an important one. And — and I — I think the president just said correctly that — that the buck does stop at his desk, and — and he takes responsibility for the failure in providing those security resources, and those terrible things may well happen from time to time.

    There were other issues associated with this — with this tragedy.

    There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could of we not known? [remember, Obama, in his UN speech was still claiming this was a video-response]

    But I find more troubling than this that on — on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador … the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event … We’ve read [eyewitnesses] accounts now about what happened. It was very clear this was not a demonstration. This was an attack by terrorists.

    And this calls into question the president’s whole policy in the Middle East. Look what’s happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. … The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes. [So Romney was, clumsily, actually making an ok point that one hoped he would]

    MS. CROWLEY: Because we’re closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the governor just quickly. Your secretary of state, as I’m sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

    Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president. And I’m always responsible. And that’s why nobody is more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I did (sic).

    The day after the attack, Governor, 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. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families. [Obama cannot be talking about acts of general terror as opposed to terrorism (war) here, as he is responding – given the entire debate here – to Romney’s assertion that it was suspicious how long it took for the admin to admit this was a terrorist (war) act, rather than an act of protest and rioting. Remember the question, Obama is basically being accused of knowing a terrorist strike was being planned and yet refusing to back up security; we have those diaries now confirming this, etc. Romney is insinuating that Obama et al tried to maintain confusion about what happens, when in reality they had been pre-warned and did nothing]

    And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief. [faux anger :p]

    MS. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to reply just quickly to this, please.

    MR. ROMNEY: … I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration (?).

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.

    MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

    MR. 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. [Romney is referring to ‘terror’ here as terrorism (war) not general terror such as a riot, he should have been clearer and said ‘terrorism’ or even ‘jihadism’ as this would have avoided Obama’s weaseling.]

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.

    MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.

    So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) — [Obama did not say terrorism, he said terror, and terrorism is obviously quite different. The Dark Knight Rises shootings were an act of terror, but not terrorism, certainly not war-terrorism]

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

    MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that. [I think Crowley was basically indicating that it took two weeks for the admin to say it was an act of terrorism (war) as was Romney’s assertion]

    MR. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

    MS. CROWLEY: They did.

    MR. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy —

    MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.

    MS. CROWLEY: … I want to move you on.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: OK, I’m happy to do that too.

    _______

    ilovecress, read the entire Rose Garden Speech – actually, you need only read the start of it, it clearly shows Obama saying the attacks on the embassy were reactions to a video, i.e part of the riots and “protests” not a terrorist act. The accusation is that the WH was warned something was being cooked up, the embassy asked for more security, this was turned down. Then when the terrorist strike did occur and an ambassador was taken out, the WH pushed the line this just happened because of the youtube video – when it was actually an attack that was pre-planned, a terrorist attack. The “acts of terror” in the speech was in reference to 9/11 twin tower victims, iraq and afgan soldiers and the embassy, and is very ambiguous, but clearly he is being generic in the use of the word “terror” which is obvious given the start of the entire speech which claims the attacks where the result of a youtube video, not a terrorist strike (otherwise, why would he say “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”? If it was a terrorist strike (which it was), then he would not need to say that.

    You’ll note Obama DODGED the entire question. He did not deny that security was refused nor, really, said who was responsible. He completely sidestepped it. And Romeny should have been more laser-beamed and said “so was security refused or not?” This, of course, would entail the embassy etc being aware of an UPCOMING attack, which, if admitted, crashes the entire Obama-House-Of-Cards. Why did you spend two/three weeks saying it was a movie-protest riot when you had INTELLIGENCE weeks (?) before the attack, saying a terrorist strike was coming.

    On paper, Romney does better than live.

    Thumb up 5

  72. Hal_10000 *

    I watched the Crowley tape. She didn’t say she was wrong. She said, correctly, that Obama referred to it as an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech (and, in fact, did so again the next day) and correctly that they then played hide the football for 10 days. but the specific point, the one Romney tried to pin him on, hoping it would be a gotchya, turned out to be wrong.

    Thumb up 0

  73. Poosh

    Hal is correct, Obama did use “act of terror” the next day, possibly in his stupid speech where he said to his civil servant, or whatever, audience that they are all totally like the dead ambassador and just as awesome, and the public sector rules, vote for me.

    I don’t know the context, if we assume he meant acts of terrorism rather than generic terror, (the semantics are always important) then that just causes Obama even more problems. We interested, remember, in finding out if Obama et al knew these were acts of Islamist Terrorism prior to the day of the attack.

    Thumb up 1

  74. ilovecress

    Poosh – your posts are really hard to read.

    Romney, when he said “terror” he, as you can understand, meant terrorism i.e reality.

    Your entire point was that Romney was actually correct, if only he’d used different words. Which when you’re talking about a quote, means you’re wrong. But the thing is he claimed the President didn’t say a very specific thing. You can see in Obama’s eyes that he realises it’s a gotcha.

    Now the rest of your point is about a different issue – that the Obama team handled it badly. If Romney hadn’t tried to play gotcha on that point of fact, then he’d have nailed Obama on this issue.

    I mean it’s brain-meltingly clear Obama is not calling the assassination a terrorist attack.

    Unfortunately, that’s not what Romney claimed. He claimed Obama didn’t say ‘act of terror’ – and was really certain about it. In a TV debate, that’s a gaffe.

    Thumb up 0

  75. Poosh

    No, Romney’s use of the word terror simply means “terrorism”. Obama’s “gotcha eyes” is merely him knowing he’s gonna pin Romney down so long as no one calls him out. After all he *did* say terror, just in a different context.

    This is why, as with all life, the semantics and words you use are important. From Romney’s POV he is talking – and he clarifies this later (but too late for the cameras alas) that he is talking about an attack from a terrorist group (yes, he should have said terrorism ((I would have wanted him to say Jihadism)), but I’m sure many of us here say “terror” as shorthand for terrorism. We also use the word “terror” for, say the Batman shootings I mentioned). Obama when he said terror in the Rose Garden’s speech was not talking about terror as Romney saw it. Romney should have seen Obama’s deception coming right at him. Romney explained the terminology far too late. As with most academic works (and sadly debates, if they mean something, MUST be academic), you always find terms and words clarified and explained right at the start of the essay, because the same words mean different things to different people, or contexts shift and/or are subjective. It’s obvious to me that Romney means terror as into Islamic terrorism – which I refer to as reality because that’s what we now know happened. Obama was not using this in the rose garden speech (I assumed he did at first, until I read the Rose Garden speech, instead of the little clip they showed on the News) – he was being generic, he uses it when talking about both soldiers and civilian staff abroad, and indeed 9/11 victims. However, in the speech, it’s clear what Romney is getting at – for Obama – but Obama knew a “gotcha” moment was coming if he can just zone in on someone remembering his words MINUS the context or indeed the rest of the speech. Romney could have sidestepped it but failed to. Had he known the Rose Garden speech by heart he could have easily dismissed Obama.

    Unfortunately, that’s not what Romney claimed. He claimed Obama didn’t say ‘act of terror’ – and was really certain about it. In a TV debate, that’s a gaffe.

    No to the former, yes to the latter. Romney did later clarify what he meant by terror (terrorist act committed by a terrorist group, or whatever he said) ((you can see, though, that Romney is contrasting ‘terror’ with the notion of riots and protests)) but by then it was too late, and yes, it became a gaffe. He should have clarified his terminology right off the bat, and he should have anticipated Obama’s sleight of hand.

    Thumb up 1

  76. ilovecress

    I see what you’re saying Poosh. they are hard words.

    hey perhaps Obama meant to say ‘Terrorism’ too, but accidentally said ‘acts of terror’. I mean it terribly easy to get them mixed up, especially when on live TV.

    What did you read in the rose garden speech – or “Remarks by the President on the Deaths of US Embassy staff in Libya” to give it the official title – that made you think that the remarks weren’t on the Deaths of the US Embassy staff in Libya?

    In fact, it could be argued that mentioning 9/11 in the middle of a speech about the Benghazi attacks is a clear link between Benghazi and terrorism.

    Thumb up 0

  77. richtaylor365

    She said, correctly, that Obama referred to it as an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech

    But she was NOT correct, Obama never referred to “IT” as an act of terror, his comment was generic, referring to any act of terror. Nowhere in that speech does he call the Benghazi raid specifically an act of terror. But whether she was right or wrong is irrelevant, she should not be injecting her spin her opinion of what she thinks Obama meant into the debate, it is flat out outrageous. It is not her job to on the spot fact check.

    Tell me, Hal, would you think this is appropriate:

    Obama: I created 5 million new jobs while I was president
    Romney: Actually, Mr. President, while you were in office, there was a net loss of 150 million private sector jobs
    Crowley: No, really Gov. Romney, the president did in fact create 5 million new jobs

    How about this:

    Obama: Under my watch we have increased drilling for oil and opened up new wells.
    Romney: Actually Mr. President, drilling permits on private lands is down over 40%.
    Crowley: Governor, the president is correct in that the number of wells opened has in fact increased.

    Unfortunately, that’s not what Romney claimed. He claimed Obama didn’t say ‘act of terror’ – and was really certain about it. In a TV debate, that’s a gaffe.

    Nope, he asked a question, he asked Obama point blank if in his rose garden speech he labeled this specific act as an act of terror, and Obama doubled down, saying yes, he did in fact say that. Romney was surprised because for over two weeks the scripted spin offered by Obama, Clinton, and Rice was that of a spontaneous outbreak spurred on by a video. See the difference?

    Thumb up 6

  78. Poosh

    hey perhaps Obama meant to say ‘Terrorism’ too, but accidentally said ‘acts of terror’. I mean it terribly easy to get them mixed up, especially when on live TV.

    Well, that may well be true (if it *was* true that would be lovely because that would suggest Obama knew it was a terrorist act, which begs the question how did he know so fast, which begs the question does he know because of the pre-warnings, which begs the question why did they push so hard to make people think this was a response to some video on youtube). However the Rose speech at the start clearly shows that Obama, at least in the speech, wants people to think this attack (or act of terror if you want…) was part of the riots (so not an act of terrorism then, logically).

    Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

    As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

    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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.

    I don’t think the remarks weren’t about the Ambassador. But he is talking about both civilians and military, and, it seems to me, grouped all the above under terror, which would include soldiers killed in war. At the start of the Rose speech he clearly says these attacks are the result of a riot – so we rule terrorism out. So we are left with his reference to “acts of terror” being generic terror. The key is when he mentions acts of terror, he is praising all serving arms of the government, and leading them into “another four have died for our freedom” or whatnot. (It’s a very good speech.) Note he didn’t say “this act” or “the attack yesterday” he used plural… Note he says four MORE Americans gave up their lives. It’s ambiguous and generic but what it most definitely is NOT a reference to, is a terrorist attack, in regards to the embassy. He says “The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others“, so he’s clearly, this is very slam dunk surely, cementing the idea that this was a response to the video, i.e part of the worldwide islamomanic riots.

    Thumb up 0

  79. Mississippi Yankee

    If nothing else this million comment post has compelled all of the lefty minded people to circle the wagons. Yanno, CM, ilovecress, Hal. Although Kimpost might not have gotten the memo as her got all ojective-n-shit. He actually confused me… and that may have been part of his ploy. Well played Swede-y!

    Thumb up 0

  80. ilovecress

    But she was NOT correct, Obama never referred to “IT” as an act of terror, his comment was generic, referring to any act of terror

    OKay, we’re going to always disagree on this one, if we’re going to disagree about what ‘it’ refers to. You’re correct that he never said the words ‘The benghazi attack was an act of terror’. To me, putting them in the context of 9/11, is saying that this is ALSO an act of terror. It makes no sense to me that he’d include terrorism without making the link.

    But this is like the ‘You didn’t build it’ thing – we’re seeing different things, and we’ll argue round in circles.

    By the way – there is an argument I’ve seen (I’m not 100% on it though) that actually describing it as Terrorism before any group has claimed responsibility, and more importantly made any demands – is legally problematic. However, I think this arguments damns Obama more than it does Romney.

    Thumb up 0

  81. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  82. richtaylor365

    It makes no sense to me that he’d include terrorism without making the link.

    But there already was a ready made link, that being to the original twin towers attacks since it was , you know, Sept. 11th, and since he had brought up the twin tower attack a paragraph before.

    OKay, we’re going to always disagree on this one

    Fair enough, I will concede that ambiguity exists, hence Romney asking the question and asking for clarification from the president as to whether in his rose garden speech he did in fact connect this attack to an act of terrorism. Obama said he did, now he is on record and must stand by his statement, but this admission makes all the resultant obfuscating even more damning.

    And it damns Crowley for trying to help the president with her on the spot fact checking, that it not her job no matter how much she wants him to win.

    Thumb up 4

  83. Xetrov

    Why would the lefties be needing to circle the wagons? Obama is still the favourite, and Romney’s 1st debate bump looks like it stopped and started to reverse before Debate 2.

    You must be smoking some Good shit. Gallup has Romney up by 6% today, highest he’s ever been in that poll. Gallup’s been polling since 1936, and only one person has ever come back from a 6% deficit on Gallup’s poll after October 17th in an election, and that person was Reagan in 1980.

    Thumb up 5

  84. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  85. ilovecress

    And it damns Crowley for trying to help the president with her on the spot fact checking, that it not her job no matter how much she wants him to win.

    To be fair, the President of the United States did command her to ‘get the transcript’. And not exactly politely either ;-)

    he is on record and must stand by his statement

    Yup. See the ‘legality’ argument – it really does show up a whole lotta incompetence.

    Thumb up 2

  86. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  87. Seattle Outcast

    I’m still stunned that they had such a long discussion about energy but didn’t mention climate change a single time.

    What would be the benefit of discussing something largely dismissed by the public as either a fraud or of no importance relative to the current state of the economy? Did they discuss trips to alpha centauri, or birth control for nuns, or helmet laws? Of course not – there are things far more important during the election to lie about.

    Moron…

    Thumb up 3

  88. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  89. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  90. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  91. CM

    Epic YouTube embed fail. It was meant to be this one:
    ‘Patriot Game – OBAMA VS ROMNEY VIDEO GAME!’
    Also pretty good, especially right at the end.

    Thumb up 1

  92. Xetrov

    You know how I embedded the above Youtube? I pasted the url into the comment window. No special formatting. Give it a shot, you might be amazed.

    Thumb up 0

  93. Xetrov

    Another gotcha moment from Obama that turns out to be a lie –

    I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often.

    Strictly speaking

    As far as size?

    From the standpoint of a public pension, Obama is well-heeled.

    As president, he will receive $191,300 annually for life — win or lose in next month’s election — and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Should Obama lose, his presidential pension kicks in immediately after leaving office.

    Given that the president enjoys a normal life span, the pension allotment would be worth upwards of $6 million.

    The federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents. Obama also will get Secret Service protection.

    In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.

    Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension plan for former lawmakers. A Freedom of Information Act request for Obama’s pension amount submitted Wednesday to the General Assembly Retirement System of Illinois was not immediately answered, nor was a call to the Obama campaign.

    But what about Romney?

    It’s extensively documented that Romney is, well, a rich guy. He earned untold millions —though famously circumspect about releasing tax returns — while leading private equity giant Bain Capital and has a substantial retirement plan.

    His Individual Retirement Account could be worth in the neighborhood of $87 million, as documented in an extensive report from the Washington Post.

    But as for a strictly public pension? Zip, zero.

    The part that speaks to me is this –

    Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.

    Thumb up 3

  94. AlexInCT

    Xetov,

    You think the left cares about facts? Especially when it makes their guy look bad. If you do I got a bringe in Brooklyn to sell you.

    Thumb up 0

  95. Kimpost

    To be honest I think that few people took that literally, X. I know I didn’t. I took it as a tongue in cheek jab at the rich guy. “I’m not as rich as you are, so I haven’t checked mine”.

    Technically speaking I doubt that Obama has checked Romney’s pension plans at all. And technically the statement doesn’t really make sense, since the richer you are the less you need to check your pension.

    It only makes sense if you leave the technicalities out of it and view it as tongue in cheek.

    Thumb up 0

  96. AlexInCT

    Technically speaking I doubt that Obama has checked Romney’s pension plans at all.

    No Kimpost, he had the FBI order the IRS to do that. Just like he has done with anyone giving big money to Romney.

    Thumb up 3

  97. Xetrov

    I’m sure if Romney had said something equally tongue and cheek, the media (and CM) would have hammered him on it.

    On another note, Gallup updated today, Romney extended his lead to 52% over 45% for O. Guess they didn’t get CM’s memo that the bump had stopped even before the second debate.

    Thumb up 4

  98. balthazar

    That interpretation would render the speech utterly ridiculous. as ilovecress noted:

    Except that even Crowley, after the debate conveniently, said that Romney was right. Thanks please try your shit somewhere else toolbag.

    Thumb up 5

  99. Poosh

    It was a political debate but Obama brought up, misleadingly of course, Romney’s tax rate AND pension. What did these have to do with anything? How was this anything but shameful? Classless and unbecoming, all linked to that nasty little class warfare strategy.

    Thumb up 2

  100. Poosh

    Apparently, people seem unaware, if Obama was suggesting at the Rose Garden that this was a TERRORIST ATTACK then that means he must have had evidence, or notions, that this was a terrorist strike. So how did he know so soon? And why did he a few days later begin to spread the idea that it was a movie-response…. when he clearly was somewhat aware it was an act of Islamic terrorism. Why as the evidence increased that it was a terrorist strike, did Obama bump up the exact opposite claim, that this was death-by-riot.

    EITHER WAY, it looks bad for Obama. I mean, this is really like Sophie’s Choice for poor ol Obama. Though I won’t expect the media to pick up on this INCREDIBLE story. Much like they decided to ignore Fast and Furious. And play down civilian deaths caused by Obama-Drones.

    Thumb up 4

  101. Kimpost

    On another note, Gallup updated today, Romney extended his lead to 52% over 45% for O. Guess they didn’t get CM’s memo that the bump had stopped even before the second debate.

    I saw that. Romney’s clearly looking good. However most of the latest Gallup poll was before the latest debate. I think that the race is tighter than 7 points.

    Thumb up 0

  102. CM

    I take my previous God remark back.

    Told you it was Xetrov.

    You know how I embedded the above Youtube? I pasted the url into the comment window. No special formatting. Give it a shot, you might be amazed.

    That’s all I’ve been doing. For some reason that one didn’t work. Ah well, I had a good run.

    Xetrov:

    Another gotcha moment from Obama that turns out to be a lie -

    Obama:

    I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often.

    Where is the lie? That he doesn’t look at his pension, or that it’s bigger than Romney’s, or that it takes longer?

    Alex:

    You think the left cares about facts? Especially when it makes their guy look bad. If you do I got a bringe in Brooklyn to sell you.

    Alex, which facts would you be referring to in this case?

    Anyway, it’s another bit of silliness really isn’t it? A bit like Romney’s ‘binders full of women’ (that were apparently given to him by a women’s group called MassGAP, as opposed to him seeking out women and collating their names in a binder).

    Obama’s pension:

    The bulk was and still is invested in U.S. Treasury Notes. Their sole stock holding is one mutual fund: Vanguard’s Social Index fund. The Vanguard fund family is favored by penny-pinchers: the Social Index fund’s annual expenses are 77 percent lower than the average mutual fund holding similar American companies.

    Vanguard describes these customers as people “who choose investments based on socially conscious and personal beliefs.” The fund’s benchmark (FTSE4Good) screens companies to invest only in firms that meet criteria in “working towards environmental sustainability; up-holding and supporting universal human rights; ensuring good supply chain labour standards; and countering bribery.” The Obamas’ current estimated net worth in these investments is between $2.8 to $11.8 million. In addition to their pension, the Obamas have set up college funds for their two daughters.

    Another financial windfall came in 2009 when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. He directed all of that money to be wired directly to charities: $250,000 went to Fisher House (free housing to veterans and military families who need medical treatment); $200,000 to the Clinton-Bush Fund for rebuilding Haiti (this was right after that country’s devastating earthquake); and from $100,000 to $125,000 each to funds providing scholarships for Native, Hispanic and African Americans, and to a fund benefiting girls in Asia.

    Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.

    That IS very cool. Good on him.

    Thumb up 1

  103. CM

    On another note, Gallup updated today, Romney extended his lead to 52% over 45% for O. Guess they didn’t get CM’s memo that the bump had stopped even before the second debate.

    That’s great news for Romney.
    There was no memo, but if there had been I’m sure it would have been about taking into account all polls, and even the models, and making an overall judgement. But then we’ve discussed this before, no use doing it again.

    Except that even Crowley, after the debate conveniently, said that Romney was right. Thanks please try your shit somewhere else toolbag.

    Again, where did she say that? I asked if this was the video, in which she does no such thing. I didn’t get a response.

    BTW some of you are being lazy on the down-voting and letting the side down – some of my posts are 1 or 2 short of being hidden away. Come on now, it takes a village. Balthazar, I hope it wasn’t you.

    It was a political debate but Obama brought up, misleadingly of course, Romney’s tax rate AND pension. What did these have to do with anything? How was this anything but shameful? Classless and unbecoming, all linked to that nasty little class warfare strategy.

    How did Obama mislead on Romney’s tax rate and pension? Again, can you back up your accusations with specifics?
    They are obviously very relevant matters because the election is largely about whether the rich (like Romney) contnue to make money hand over fist while everyone else continues to stagnate or go backwards, simply because of how the system is set up.
    Again, the right can’t play that card this time, with Romney eloquently laying out to his doners the most transparent case of class warfare you can possibly get.

    Apparently, people seem unaware, if Obama was suggesting at the Rose Garden that this was a TERRORIST ATTACK then that means he must have had evidence, or notions, that this was a terrorist strike.

    By using it as an example of an “act of terror” he covers all bases. Violently storming a compound and killing people is an act of terror, no matter who carries out or what the specific motivation was.

    EITHER WAY, it looks bad for Obama.

    Yep.

    RCP has Romney in the lead in the electoral college for the first time, 206-201.

    That’s a result of North Carolina being taken out of the ‘Toss Up’ section and added to the ‘Leans Romney’ section. Which is fair enough, as he leads by an average of 5.6% in three polls, and that’s all they have to go on.

    I saw that. Romney’s clearly looking good. However most of the latest Gallup poll was before the latest debate. I think that the race is tighter than 7 points.

    Seven points is definitely an outlier. The other most recent polls are PPP (tie), Rasmussen (Romney +2), Ipsos/Reuters (Obama +3), IBD/Tipp (tie), and YouGov/Economist (Obama +1).

    Thumb up 1

  104. balthazar

    Verbate of CNN air at approximately 2330edt
    Candy Crowley: Well you know again i heard the presidents speech at the time i sort of reread a lot of stuff about libya because i knew we would probably get a libya question so i kind of wanted to to be up on it.

    so i knew that the president had had said you know “these acts of terror will not stand” or whatever the whole quote was. and i think actually – because i did turn around right after that and say “but you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that there was a you know this riot outside the benghazi consulate which there wasn’t”

    so he was right in the main i just thing he picked the wrong word.

    GFY

    Thumb up 1

  105. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  106. CM

    Some of those bad-lip-reading videos are just ok, but they hit that one out of the park. Before this , the Rick Perry (‘save a pretzel for the gasjets!’) was my fave.
    I really think this is the only legitimate use of auto-tune.

    Thumb up 1

  107. mrblume

    The polling changes have nothing at all to do with the debates. The LSM simply realized that the jig was up, so they had to unskew their data, lest the last idiot notices what is going on!

    Thumb up 2

  108. CM

    The polling changes have nothing at all to do with the debates. The LSM simply realized that the jig was up, so they had to unskew their data, lest the last idiot notices what is going on!

    Nate Silver has an interesting piece about polls exaggerating bounces. The part I found most interesting is the part about the YouGov polls. Instead of contacting a new group of voters, they resurvey the same ones that they did in their September set of polls.

    They were able to reach about 80 percent of these voters, and found that very few of them had changed their minds.

    The YouGov polls, which contacted the same group of respondents, are potentially suggestive that some of Mr. Romney’s gains since the Denver debate reflect the increased willingness of those who might be inclined to vote for him to participate in surveys, rather than very many Americans having changed their minds.

    This does not necessarily reflect any characteristic of Mr. Romney, Republican-leaning voters or the Denver debate in particular, however. It is potentially a problem whenever there is a news event that could affect voter enthusiasm and their willingness to respond to surveys.

    One reason that Mr. Romney may have received such a large bounce following the Denver debate, for example, is because it came right on the heels of a strong run of news for Mr. Obama — particularly the Democratic convention, and the release of the “47 percent” tape.

    Perhaps if YouGov had also contacted this same group of voters in August in advance of the party conventions, they would also have shown a relatively small bounce for Mr. Obama in September.

    Stated more simply: Perhaps Mr. Obama’s numbers went from being artificially inflated to artificially deflated, exaggerating the degree of change in the race on both ends.

    Thumb up 0

  109. Seattle Outcast

    Ideological fruitcake. Good luck with these guys Hal, you’re going to need it

    By being part of the distinct minority that actually believes in “global warming”, you’re pretty much the ideological fruitcake. You really need to read the actual news more, and less discredited bullshit.

    Since it is a fraud, it isn’t linked to anything that isn’t fictional, so saying it’s part of the energy policy is just fantasy on your part.

    Thumb up 2

  110. AlexInCT

    Alex, which facts would you be referring to in this case?

    Let’s start with Obama’s bullshit lie about Romney’s pension not only being bigger than his but invested in other countries, implying that Obama’s pension isn’t.

    If you want we can then move on to the economy, which Obama told us was so rip roaring and thus that resulted in high gas prices. I guess when your economy is on fire it also results in the largest welfare roll jump I can ever remember hearing about and now as the single largest government spending item costing tax payers $1.03 trillion a year. I guess that is why we are stuck with government spending $11 for every $7 of income it has too while unemployment keeps going in the wrong direction despite the fudged numbers. Even Bubba is calling this jumping economy nonsense, nonsense.

    There is a reason that all the left has left is the failed class warfare bullshit and the real record of all that wasted green energy bullshit.

    And then we have the mother off all lies. Remember Obama telling us how he got Osama and al Qaeda was dead? Not anymore.

    There is tons more, but I figure this should give us enough to work with for weeks.

    Thumb up 2

  111. CM

    By being part of the distinct minority that actually believes in “global warming”, you’re pretty much the ideological fruitcake.

    That you think you’re in a majority says it all.
    Of course the more knowledgeable a person is on the subject, the greater the chance they acknowledge it.

    You really need to read the actual news more, and less discredited bullshit.

    Gosh, so meaningful. I take it all back – climate change is a fraud!

    Since it is a fraud, it isn’t linked to anything that isn’t fictional, so saying it’s part of the energy policy is just fantasy on your part.

    Your brain is a fraud. I’d seek compensation.

    Thumb up 0

  112. CM

    Let’s start with Obama’s bullshit lie about Romney’s pension not only being bigger than his but invested in other countries, implying that Obama’s pension isn’t.

    Ah ok, I see. Sorry Xetrov I completely misread what you quoted (and the link). My bad.
    Technically it sounds like Obama was wrong, in that Romney doesn’t have investment in a specific fund called a ‘pension’. I’m sure it won’t mean much to you that it was clearly a throw-away retort, and that massive personal investments, which you’ll rely on when you retire, is only different from a pension in that it doesn’t have the specific word ‘pension’ on the documentation. It still includes ALL your retirement savings.
    Also, Obama was talking about Romney being “the last person who’s going to get tough on China” because of his investments there. But as Obama wasn’t making a case about cracking down on China, I don’t see the implication (that Obama doesn’t have investment in China). It doesn’t matter whether Obama has investments there. The argument wasn’t about how has investments. The argument was about whether or not Romney is talking shit about cracking down on China. Quite a difference.

    Thumb up 0

  113. Seattle Outcast

    After an enlightening reading of CM hidden post due to low comment rating it occurs to me, once again, that 1) CM is grossly ignorant of the actual economic data of the USA, and 2) he’s a complete troll for Kos

    Thumb up 2

  114. CM

    If you want we can then move on to the economy, which Obama told us was so rip roaring and thus that resulted in high gas prices.

    Wrong, and I questioned this at the time (above).
    Obama was totally correct that high US gas prices are almost all the result of high world gas prices. It’s simple market economics.

    Obama didn’t even remotely saying that the economy was “rip roaring”
    He said:

    Well, think about what the governor — think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was 1.80 (dollars), 1.86 (dollars). Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse; because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney is now promoting. So it’s conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices, because with his policies we might be back in that same mess.

    The world price for oil/gas crashed when the economic crisis hit. As things have recovered, the price has climbed.
    The same thing happened here in NZ. Because we’re also at the mercy of the world market for oil.
    This is the same argument that many have here over the high price of lamb (meat): “We’ve got all these sheep, why is lamb so expensive”. The answer is always the same: “Because we pay the world market price”.

    I guess when your economy is on fire

    Same problem here Alex: he never even remotely said it was “on fire”. That a slow recovery has been underway for last few years is the reality.

    it also results in the largest welfare roll jump I can ever remember hearing about

    You link has gone AWOL. And which specific ‘fact’ or ‘facts’ are your responding to?

    and now as the single largest government spending item costing tax payers $1.03 trillion a year.

    Only if you redefine welfare for polotical reasons.
    But again, specifically what did Obama say in the debate about this which is a lie?

    I guess that is why we are stuck with government spending $11 for every $7 of income it has too

    As we all know, the Bush tax cuts and Bush wars, as well as the massive economic recession, are largely to blame for that. Yes, you’re always going to spend more than you earn in a recession.
    As a percentage of GDP, there has been a sharp improvement since the peak of the recession.
    The brown and pink lines are coming back closer together.
    So no, you’re not stuck with that at all. As your link shows, for 2012 the Govt spent about $7 for every $5 it took in.

    And before you want to get all “stimulus doesn’t work” on me, check out the excellent box 1.1 on page 41 from the IMF World Report. A bit wonky, but they’re basically finding that austerity isn’t just counterproductive re growth and jobs. It’s a lot more so than they thought.

    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/unemployment-doesnt-just-hurt-the-unemployed/

    Thumb up 1

  115. CM

    After an enlightening reading of CM hidden post due to low comment rating it occurs to me, once again, that 1) CM is grossly ignorant of the actual economic data of the USA, and 2) he’s a complete troll for Kos

    Yes we have a different internet over here. This blog is the only shared component.
    When did I ever link to anything at Kos? I been there like once in my life.
    Do you do children’s parties?

    Thumb up 0

  116. CM

    unemployment keeps going in the wrong direction despite the fudged numbers.

    You’re quoting Dept of Labour job numbers to demonstrate that the Dept of Labour job numbers are fudged?
    There is nothing in there is suggest anything is being fudged. Or even that unemployment is going in the wrong direction. From your link:

    Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months.

    Many economists believe a reading below 400,000 points to an improving labor market. The four-week moving average of new claims, which smoothes out volatility and is considered a better measure of labor market trends, rose just 750 last week to 365,500.

    Even Bubba is calling this jumping economy nonsense, nonsense.

    False premise (nobody called the economy jumping, or anything of the sort). Which is why your characterisation of what Clinton said doesn’t make sense.

    There is a reason that all the left has left is the failed class warfare bullshit

    Right, and Romney’s 47% comments weren’t the very epitome of ‘class warfare’. He sees that 47% as a distinct class with distinct characteristics, and he’s not interested in them because they’ll never vote for him. Class warfare simply doesn’t come any more clearly presented. All that was missing was him stating “I believe in, and prosecute, class warfare”. But it wasn’t required, he didn’t need to.
    I don’t actually buy the ‘class warfare’ argument. Anything can be considered ‘class warfare’ if you want it to. Further entrenching a system which sees the wealth at the top sky-rocket while the real incomes of the bottom 90% flat-line or decline is just as much ‘class warfare’ as anything.
    I think the whole ‘poor picked-on rich people’ argument is lame. The rich have never had it so good (except perhaps for Dickensian times). Complaining about the lot of the rich is just insanity. Obama has done nothing to change the fact that people can get incredibly rich. In the first year after the recession, 93% of income growth went to the very very top. Business profits are booming. Business surveys don’t show any great change in the numbers of business-owners who are concerned about regulations. For the last 3 years, the largest concern by far has consistently been a lack of demand. Business owners aren’t going to employ people to just sit around. That would be stupid and they’d go out of business.

    and the real record of all that wasted green energy bullshit.

    I’m going to take some time to look into this.

    And then we have the mother off all lies. Remember Obama telling us how he got Osama and al Qaeda was dead? Not anymore.

    I’m pretty sure Osama is still dead. And I’m pretty sure Obama never said al Qaeda was dead.

    Not anymore.

    Yes, more.

    There is tons more, but I figure this should give us enough to work with for weeks.

    Thanks though, that’s exactly what I was looking for. And I’ve still got tthe green energy claims to look at….

    BTW I look forward to Poosh telling you off for not understanding your own links, and for Iconoclast to insult you for link-bombing.
    Ah, yeah, that’s right…..that never happens.

    Thumb up 0

  117. Mississippi Yankee

    Ah ok, I see. Sorry Xetrov I completely misread what you quoted (and the link). My bad. Technically it sounds like Obama was wrong, in that Romney doesn’t have investment in a specific fund called a ‘pension’. I’m sure it won’t mean much to you that it was clearly a throw-away retort, and that massive personal investments….

    Obfuscate for me baby, harder CM faster, faster… oh OH OH!!!

    Thumb up 1

  118. CM

    Obfuscate for me baby, harder CM faster, faster… oh OH OH!!!

    If you and Seattle get a room then I’ll turn up dressed in whatever you like.
    $200, take it or leave it.

    Come on though, I apologised for gettting it wrong as I clearly didn’t read that properly. That’s the opposite of obfuscating.
    Point is, is it not a distinction without a difference? Your opinion?

    Thumb up 0

  119. CM

    You obviously miss the point, which is that link-bombing is meaningless.

    Perhaps insult was the wrong word. Pick any word you like, it won’t happen to Alex….

    Thumb up 0

  120. Xetrov

    So…Town Hall Debate. Both first ladies in attendance and well dressed. Michelle wearing an outfit that costs $3,290, and Ann wearing an outfit that costs half that at $1,690. So what would be a fitting headline if you’re a member of the MSM? If you’re Newsweek, it’s “Ann Romney Wears $1,690 Oscar de la Renta Dress to Presidential Debate”. Perhaps Romney’s remark about “Obama reaches out to Catholics. Romney dines with rich people” from the Smith Roast isn’t so far from the truth.

    Thumb up 1

  121. Iconoclast

    Perhaps insult was the wrong word.

    Ya think??

    Pick any word you like, it won’t happen to Alex…

    Is there any particular reason why it should “happen to Alex”? After all, he doesn’t behave as you do, what with the spamming of threads with dozens of one-liners, and the posting of raw urls with one liner explanations, and so forth.

    Thumb up 6

  122. CM

    “Ya think” – It wasn’t far off. You didn’t mean it as a compliment. So not sure why you’re pretending otherwise. Again, pick any term you like, it’s irrelevant.

    He just link-bombed. In the same thread where you told me not to link bomb. Which is why I mentioned it.You want to ignore your double-standards, fine, but at least don’t try to outright deny it.
    If what I do is spamming then writing exactly the same ideological irrelevant paragraph all the time no matter what the context is also spamming.

    Thumb up 0

  123. Xetrov

    I still in general do not trust polling, CM. And the Electoral College Lead I posted comes from RCP (whom if I recall correctly you like to cite and have used previously because they average multiple polls). I cited the Gallup poll because A) they are still using weighting based on 2008 turnout numbers which will never happen this year, and B) the historical significance of the poll as to where it currently stands.

    I couldn’t give two shits about anyones opinion out of the Washington Post on politics, especially that dumbshit Klein. Why you keep posting his verbal (written?) diarrhea, I’ll never know.

    Thumb up 2

  124. CM

    I still in general do not trust polling, CM.

    That’s fair enough. Nobody should read too much into polling. The detail behind the Gallup number is a good example of why.

    And the Electoral College Lead I posted comes from RCP (whom if I recall correctly you like to cite and have used previously because they average multiple polls).

    I didn’t question your use of it (or suggest you were incorrect). I just provided a bit more detail. The main thing that’s happened has been for a number of states to fall into the Toss Up column that were previously Likely Obama or Leans Obama. There are now 131 EC votes in the Toss Up column, far more than previously.

    I cited the Gallup poll because A) they are still using weighting based on 2008 turnout numbers which will never happen this year, and B) the historical significance of the poll as to where it currently stands.

    Right, not because they’re all of a sudden putting Romney well ahead, even though no other polling is. If they didn’t, you’d have still mentioned them?

    I couldn’t give two shits about anyones opinion out of the Washington Post on politics, especially that dumbshit Klein. Why you keep posting his verbal (written?) diarrhea, I’ll never know.

    Well if you were able to bring yourself to view something you might potentially not like (“dumbshit Klein? you’re dropping down to that sort of level now?), you’d have found the editor-in-chief of Gallup explaining it a little more:

    If Gallup is right, then that looks to me like we’re headed for an electoral college/popular vote split. Last night, I spoke with Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup, to ask him if I was missing something. He said I wasn’t. “That’s certainly what it looks like,” he says.

    But Newport was cautious in interpreting his numbers. Gallup’s poll cheered Romney supporters because it showed Romney gaining ground even after the second debate. But Newport didn’t see it like that. Remember, he warned, it’s a seven-day poll. “I think we’re still seeing leftover positive support for Romney and I don’t think we’re seeing impact yet from the second debate,” he says.

    What you think is going on in the race depends on whether you think the electorate will ultimately look more like Gallup’s “likely voter” model, where the race is a blowout, or all registered voters, where it’s a dead heat. So I asked Newport to explain the likely voter model to me.

    “The likely voters model takes into account changes in the response to questions about how closely they’re following and how enthusiastic they are,” he said. “It’s not just capturing underlying movement — it’s representing changes in enthusiasm.”

    That sounds, I replied, like a model that would tend to overstate the effects of major events that favored one candidate or the other, as their supporters would grow temporarily more enthusiastic and attentive, while the other side would grow temporarily disillusioned. Newport agreed. “I wouldn’t use the word ‘overstate,’ ” he said. “But it would be very sensitive to changes in enthusiasm. The Denver debate clearly had an impact on Romney’s people. I think your insight is correct there. Whether we see a dulling of that over the next several days is what I want to see.”

    Thumb up 0

  125. Iconoclast

    “Ya think” – It wasn’t far off.

    Depends on how loosely we define “far”, I reckon…

    You didn’t mean it as a compliment.

    So I must have therefore meant it as an insult? Can you say, “False Dichotomy”?

    Are your posts generally meant to be complimentary to someone? No? So we should therefore conclude that they’re meant to be insulting?

    So not sure why you’re pretending otherwise.

    I am not “pretending” anything. I am merely pointing out facts, making observations and expressing opinions. No pretense.

    …it’s irrelevant.

    Yet here you are, still arguing the matter.

    He just link-bombed. In the same thread where you told me not to link bomb.

    I never told you “not to link bomb”. Frankly, I regret using that phrase, for I am not sure anyone here is using it correctly. Regardless, I was only pointing out, by example, that simply posting a one-liner with a raw url doesn’t really mean anything because someone could just as easily post a stand-alone url claiming the diametric opposite. That was my point, and, ironically, you again illustrated it by trying to counter my one-liner with yet another diametric opposing one-liner (which was essentially nothing more than a repeat of your original one-liner), hence my subsequent elaboration.

    You want to ignore your double-standards, fine, but at least don’t try to outright deny it.

    Pot Kettle Black

    If what I do is spamming then writing exactly the same ideological irrelevant paragraph all the time no matter what the context is also spamming.

    Perhaps, but then I am not convinced that such is what Alex does. That you personally see it that way is to be expected, I suppose. However, writing literally dozens of one-liner responses is spamming, undeniably.

    Thumb up 3

  126. Kimpost

    The one-liners you are talking about are presumably the ones in the debate threads? Because other than that I haven’t seen it. And on the debates, I took those one-liners as an attempt of turning RT into a debate twitter feed.

    Occasional speed commenting once in a while can be fun.

    Alex has an unfortunate habit of turning everything into anti-leftist rants about Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Allow me to play Alex.

    – The leftist scum in the Obama administration doesn’t want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%. That’s because they are communists, and everyone with half a brain knows it. If you think otherwise you’re either an idiot, or you share the same goals. That tax raise is just the first step towards the end goal which is replacing America with a communist utopia, and we all know how wonderful those places can be. History has shown us what leftist like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao really wants to do.

    Thumb up 1

  127. Mississippi Yankee

    The leftist scum in the Obama administration doesn’t want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%. That’s because they are communists, and everyone with half a brain knows it. If you think otherwise you’re either an idiot, or you share the same goals. That tax raise is just the first step towards the end goal which is replacing America with a communist utopia, and we all know how wonderful those places can be. History has shown us what leftist like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao really wants to do.

    Wow Kim, by far the most intelligent writing you’ve ever done… and you’re not even aware of what you’ve done.

    PS – if you could work in the similarities between Islam and Marxism that would be great.

    Thumb up 1

  128. Xetrov

    even though no other polling is

    Your memory or your cognitive abilities have taken a serious hit if you honestly think Gallup’s the only poll in the last few weeks with Romney up. He was up in the nationals at your venerated RCP average since the first debate up until yesterday for crying out loud.

    “dumbshit Klein? you’re dropping down to that sort of level now?

    You linked to him (repeatedly), apparently you dropped to the level well before me. Stop posting liberal talking point opinion bullshit peices by people proven to be so far left that they can’t possibly be considered objective by anyone with a rational braincell and I’ll take you more seriously in my replies.

    Thumb up 3

  129. CM

    Xetrov there is hell of a difference between Romney being ahead by 1 or 2, and Romney being ahead by 6 or 7. I never came close to claiming none showed him ahead, I’ve been very clear about the fact that Gallup has been an outlier. But you know this, so I’ve no idea why you’re going down this silly and pointless road. Perhaps spend a bit more time actually reading what I’ve written. As for the link, Klein was irrelevant. Even if he had been relevant I haven’t called a right-wing equivalent a “dumbshit” or anything similar. I can only assume you’ve had a bad couple of days.

    Thumb up 0

  130. Iconoclast

    I took those one-liners as an attempt of turning RT into a debate twitter feed.

    Good for you, but their sheer volume still places them in the spam category.

    Alex has an unfortunate habit of turning everything into anti-leftist rants about Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

    Again, I don’t see it that way, but thanks for telling me how I “should” perceive his posts…..

    Thumb up 2

  131. CM

    The one-liners you are talking about are presumably the ones in the debate threads? Because other than that I haven’t seen it. And on the debates, I took those one-liners as an attempt of turning RT into a debate twitter feed.

    Occasional speed commenting once in a while can be fun.

    Yeah I thought all that would have been obvious. But no. God forbid……

    Bad days all round then.

    Thumb up 0