ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

What Was The Debate Subject, Again?

[ Posted Monday, October 22nd, 2012 – 21:29 PDT ]

To paraphrase an oldie but a goodie: "What if they had a debate and nobody read the agenda?" Tonight's debate was, ostensibly, supposed to be on foreign policy. However, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama decided fairly early on that the differences between the two policy-wise were pretty small, so they both decided to hijack the foreign policy debate and instead just continue the debates on the economy, instead.

OK, that's a snarky overstatement, but still....

As to who won the debate, the answer to that is easy: "Who cares, the San Francisco Giants are going to the World Series!" Ahem. No, wait, that can't be right... let me refer to my notes here....

All kidding aside, though, I thought that both men achieved certain goals tonight, but that the goals Mitt Romney laid out for himself pretty much guaranteed that Barack Obama would be seen as the "winner" of the debate, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the mainstream media agreed. At worst, for either man, the media will declare the third presidential debate a tie and move on to polling obsession. Personally, I thought Obama had a great night and was much more forceful than Mitt Romney, and I thought Obama won on stylistic points as well. But then, as we've seen, because I write these snap judgment columns instantly after the debate finishes (what I think I will dub "procrastiblogging" rather than "liveblogging," just to coin a phrase), often times the honest reaction I have doesn't agree with the conventional wisdom, so we'll just have to wait and see. Also, one caveat before I jump into the fray -- all these quotes are from hastily-jotted notes, and I probably got a few words wrong here and there, but hope I have conveyed the essence of these quotes accurately. Having said that, let's examine the night's debate in detail.

Barack Obama came to tonight's debate loaded with zingers, and he got off one of his finest in the first exchange, after Mitt Romney seemed to somehow blow his opening joke ("funny this time not on purpose?" Um, what?). Obama took Romney to task for calling Russia our biggest foreign threat, and then quipped "The 1980s are calling, they want their foreign policy back," which was admittedly a good zinger.

Mitt Romney's strategy for the entire night seemed to consist of three tactics. The first was to use the word "peace" as much as possible, in an effort to convince America's suburbanites that he wasn't the warmonger he's been playing out on the campaign trail all year. I did cheat and watch five or ten minutes of after-chat, and heard one pundit state "He talked of peace more than George McGovern," which I thought summed it up nicely.

Romney's second tactic was to paint the Middle East as in "tumult," a word Romney used almost as often as "peace." This was apparently a dog whistle to the neo-conservatives of some sort, which can best be translated as: "Obama's soft on TERROR, I will be strong strong strong on TERROR and things will be wonderful." Or something, I don't speak fluent neo-con, I must shamefully admit.

Romney's third tactic was deployed several times, but it never really worked, in my opinion. This was to turn to the president and say "Attacking me isn't a foreign policy." Unfortunately for Romney, this never really worked, since Obama quite obviously does have a foreign policy, whether you agree with it or not. This may be due to Romney spending too much time in the right-wing media echo chamber, but that's just a guess on my part.

Romney made several stumbles throughout the evening, such as starting off with a strong "My strategy is to go after the bad guys," and then revisiting this at the end of the debate with "we've got to do more than killing bad guys." Yes, the man seems to have flip-flopped in the same debate. Romney also, oddly, stated that the United States only has "42 allies" in the world (although I may have copied that number down wrong, this came about 20-30 minutes in). Romney also had a mini-gaffe early on when he said "if I'm president" which he quickly corrected to the standard "when I'm president."

Obama, throughout the night, looked awfully presidential, but then incumbent presidents always have a natural advantage over challengers in foreign policy debates. Presidents don't just have advisors and read white papers, they actually have to deal with the rest of the world, and four years of such experience usually shows through. As it did tonight.

While Bob Schieffer didn't let things get too far off into the weeds at the beginning (notably, on the Libya/Benghazi issue), later on in the evening he seemed to either go to sleep or get cowed by Romney's constant squabbling with him over the rules (as Romney has done in every single debate so far). Schieffer wasn't as bad as Jim Lehrer in the first debate, but the argument for handing the journalistic baton over to a much younger generation of moderators seems to be, from where I'm sitting, a very convincing one to make right about now.

Barack Obama, quite notably, stood up for his record this evening, on foreign policy and beyond. He defended his actions around the world consistently, and forcibly called Romney out on another bit of nonsense from the right-wing-o-sphere: the so-called "apology tour." Obama fans have been waiting for a long time to hear someone smack this down, as Obama masterfully did tonight, to all except loyal consumers of Fox News.

Mitt Romney attempted to walk back some chest-thumping from earlier in his campaign, and seemed much more subdued than your average Republican politician on the whole "what to do about the rest of the world" issue. Romney -- a Republican, mind you -- even stated that the United States of America "should not dictate to other countries" which pretty much contradicts Republican policy for the last 50 years or so. Because of Romney's new "Peace On Earth" stance, and because of his new-found positions (on such things as perhaps not sending Americans into Syria), for most of this foreign policy debate the two candidates agreed more than they disagreed. This was indeed a bizarre turn of events -- on question after question, Romney would announce a position or two he's taken, and then Obama would respond with some version of "I'm glad you support what we're already doing." The hair-splitting necessary to show daylight between the two was downright Jesuitical, at times (if that's even a word). Obama even pointed this out at one point, noting that Romney seemed to be in favor of saying and doing what Obama has already said and done, just "saying it louder."

The biggest points of contention in the evening were probably on two stock lines Romney's been using on the stump. Romney looked rather shocked when Obama smacked both of them down forcefully. The first came with some inexplicable Romneyism about how our Navy is somehow "smaller than it has been since 1917." Um, what? What are you talking, Mitt, number of ships or something? Here's the way I would have smacked that down: "So, Mitt, if you took charge of America's Navy circa 1917, and I took charge of today's modern Navy, who do you really think would win a conflict between the two? Be honest." Here's how Obama brilliantly smacked it down, instead, in the best zinger he had all night: "We have ships that planes can take off from and land on... they're called aircraft carriers. We have ships that can go beneath the waves... they're called nuclear submarines. We have fewer horses and bayonets now, than we did in 1916, too."

The second major scuffle was when Barack Obama took exception to the whole "apology tour" lie, starting off with "Nothing Romney said is true." He invited America to see what the fact checkers had to say about that, and called it Romney's "biggest whopper."

About the only new idea from Mitt Romney tonight was to get an indictment for Iran's Ahmadinejad, for "genocide" because of the "words he has said." This was a head-scratcher, but at least it was a new and unique idea on the table. Not exactly something that's going to win Mitt a whole lot of votes, but it certainly is a unique thing to attempt, as I've never heard the suggestion before tonight.

Barack Obama occasionally got very serious, and almost crossed over into "pissed off" a few times during the evening, as when he spoke of his trip to Israel, where "I didn't take donors along, and I didn't hold fundraisers," which Romney (quite wisely) didn't attempt to contradict, since Obama was right.

Obama also picked up on Romney's new non-neo-con foreign policy stances, and hit Mitt hard on positions he's previously taken, versus positions he was now espousing. Obama kept repeating phrases like "you've been all over the map" to paint Romney as a weathervane, turning whichever way the winds were blowing on the campaign trail -- to quite good effect. The most effective one of these all night was Obama using Romney's words against him with: "It was worth moving Heaven and Earth to get Osama Bin Laden!"

At some point, however, both candidates decided that they were so close together on foreign policy positions that they'd just start debating the economy again. This was an attempt by both men to strongly make the point: "We can't be strong worldwide unless America is strong at home." Neither man really hit this one out of the park, I thought, although they both tied up a few loose ends from previous debates, and got all the zingers in they had left previously lying on the table. Their debate coaches will be proud, to put this another (more snarky) way.

Obama visibly got under Romney's skin once on the economy, over the whole "let Detroit go bankrupt" issue. Romney's strongest line of the night might have been: "I'm a son of Detroit, my dad ran a car company," although Obama certainly had the facts on his side on this one. This election may come down to Michigan and Ohio, and Mitt Romney may have torpedoed his chances in these states by that Wall Street Journal opinion piece he wrote in the midst of Detroit's dimmest days. Obama countered strongly as well, with: "The people of Detroit do not forget."

As expected, there were some moments where everyone was talking at once. Obama seemed a tad more interrupt-ey when it came to speaking over Romney, while Romney seemed to save this mostly for stomping on the moderator talking.

I have no idea what the split-screen effect will show, as I thought Romney looked smug with a smirk on his face quite often, but then again I always think that about him, so that's probably my own bias talking ("full disclosure" and all of that...).

Both men attempted to trot out their "I met a guy on the campaign" stories, but for some reason they both seemed a little flat this time around. Maybe it's because foreign policy isn't the best venue for this sort of thing, I don't know. Obama's story of the 9/11 victim seemed particularly over the top here, but then what do I know? I'm a bigger fan of the wonky stuff than the soft-and-fuzzy stuff, so I'll leave this for others to decide.

Both men had pretty good closing statements, but again I think Obama had an edge in the whole "talking into the camera -- right to the American people" thing, but that may have just been on stylistic points. Or my aforementioned bias.

Going in to the debate, Barack Obama wanted to spotlight his foreign policy victories. Mitt Romney wanted to "appear presidential" and not appear to be a warmonger whose puppet strings were firmly in the grip of the Republican cabal that got us into Iraq. Both men, I would say, adequately achieved their goals. Because Romney's goal was to appear meeker, he seemed dominated by Obama for much of the night. It's hard to dominate when your goal is to appear peaceable and non-threatening, I suppose. Both men also had the goal of getting in their "last licks" on the state of the economy, and both men achieved trotting out their talking points in this regard -- even though the subject wasn't supposed to be on the agenda tonight.

But I go back and re-read what I've written here, and the more I consider it, the more tonight seemed like a clear victory for Obama. Neither man fell on his face or quite obviously "lost" the debate, but I have to say upon reflection, Obama clearly won.

The real question is who's going to win in two weeks, though, so let's all keep focused on that, going forward.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

129 Comments on “What Was The Debate Subject, Again?”

  1. [1] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    But I go back and re-read what I've written here, and the more I consider it, the more tonight seemed like a clear victory for Obama. Neither man fell on his face or quite obviously "lost" the debate, but I have to say upon reflection, Obama clearly won.

    What did he really "win," though? Romney had to show the American people that he was up to the task of C.I.C. And CNN has that as a dead heat: O, 63%; Romney, 60%.

    I agree that neither fell on his face. But I think that just translates into Romney keeping the momentum going. O needed to hurt him. I don't think he achieved that. At all.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    You're absolutely right. Who cares about the debate. I didn't catch any of it (yet) but I sure did catch the end of the Giants' big win tonight. Now THAT was exciting! Well, as exciting as a 9-0 win can be. But, still!

    I did see one clip of the debate tonight and it was Romney saying that the surge in Afghanistan worked. I'm guessing that President Obama disagreed with him on that or, more likely, said nothing at all.

  3. [3] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    ...Bottom line: The debate appears to be a draw when it comes to affecting the vote of those who tuned in to the faceoff.

    Half of those questioned say that the debate did not affect how they would vote, with 25% saying they are more likely to vote for Romney and 24% saying they are more likely to cast a ballot for Obama.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/22/cnn-poll-who-won-the-debate/?hpt=po_t1

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    Poll I saw had Obama over Romney 53 to 23.

    :-)

    Guess I called at least one debate right, eh?

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Oh, you've got to at least watch the "the 1980s called" and the "these things called aircraft carriers"... you'll get a chuckle out of them, I promise!

    :-)

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB said it right...

    Romney is surging ahead of Romney in practically ALL categories of voters...

    The momentum is right Romney right now. Obama HAD to blunt that momentum.

    Obama failed. He may have "won" this debate, but the first debate, plus all his other bonehead errors of the last few months, have come home to roost.

    Obama is toast.

    In two weeks we'll know this for a fact..

    Michale.......

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did see one clip of the debate tonight and it was Romney saying that the surge in Afghanistan worked. I'm guessing that President Obama disagreed with him on that or, more likely, said nothing at all.

    This is why Romney's likability factor as gone and Obama's has gone down.

    Romney has NO PROBLEM giving credit where credit is due and agree with the things that Obama has done correctly.

    I have yet to hear Obama reciprocate on anything except being a good husband and father.

    Team Obama has stated and/or implied that Romney is a murdered and a felon. Obama's personal hatred of Romney is well-documented..

    There are no such claims against Romney..

    I believe I stated several months ago that negative is all Obama has and he should have kept his powder dry...

    Romney is not the evil Corporationist Monster that Obama wanted Americans to believe he is.. All three debates, Romney showed himself to be a thoughtful and compassionate man...

    In short, Obama wanted Americans to believe that Romney was the Hulk...

    Romney showed us at the debates that he is more of a David Banner (Bill Bixby's portrayal)....

    That is why Obama is toast.. Obama lied to the American people once again...

    Michale....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why Romney's likability factor as gone and Obama's has gone down.

    TRANSLATION: This is why Romney's likability factor has gone up and Obama's has gone down.

    My bust... :^/

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, forgot to say -

    No Electoral Math today, sorry, will try to get it together for tomorrow!

    Mea culpa maxima.

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, Obama needed to shellack Romney as bad as Romney shellacked Obama in the first debate..

    It didn't happen...

    Overall, history won't remember the second or third debates..

    The First Debate will be the one that goes down in the history books...

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now HERE is someone that has WAY too much time on their hands... :D

    http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/cropart.jpeg1-640x428.jpg

    Apparently, ET is voting for Romney :D

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Who cares, the San Francisco Giants are going to the World Series!

    Go Giants! (As a Reds fan, I'm still a little upset about our collapse, but not enough to root for the Cardinals!)

    No mention of climate change in that debate. Wow!

    That, to me, is much more disturbing than anything that happened in the debate. It shows how much the debate has been limited to conservative topics.

    The other thing I find interesting is this narrative they're trying to get off the ground that only the first debate, only the one Romney looked better in, mattered.

    Quite frankly, I don't think any of them really make much of a difference so much as the overwhelming SuperPAC spend for Romney.

    Here in Ohio, they just replaced the evening news with anti-Obama commercials. On all channels. *sigh*

    -David

  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW Michale-

    Obama looked like he had a much better understanding of the military.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN283AUxSIA

    Any thoughts on that?

    -David

  14. [14] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Obama looked like he had a much better understanding of the military.

    I think O sounded surly and disrepectful and probably did more harm to himself than to Romney, with that answer.

  15. [15] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I think O sounded surly and disrepectful and probably did more harm to himself than to Romney, with that answer.

    Of course you do ... because you're fighting for Romney and he doesn't look very knowledgable here.

    Romney was outclassed by someone who actually has been CIC for the past 4 years. Didn't Roms say something like the Navy is smaller now than in 1916?

    But it's ok, Chris, it's not what Romney is banking on. The anonymous money has come through for him and this could very well tip the scales.

    -David

  16. [16] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    In short, Obama wanted Americans to believe that Romney was the Hulk...

    Romney showed us at the debates that he is more of a David Banner (Bill Bixby's portrayal)....

    LOL. So true, Michale. And all those those ad dollars Team-O invested in trying to turn Romney into a monster have officially gone swirling down the drain.

  17. [17] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW,
    Romney also had a mini-gaffe early on...

    His biggest gaffe was when he said Syria was Iran's 'route to the sea' which most people seemed to miss but I have a merchant navy friend who has actually sailed into Iran and thought this was pretty funny...

    Romney would announce a position or two he's taken, and then Obama would respond with some version of "I'm glad you support what we're already doing."

    I would have loved to have seen right-wing nuts watching this debate. Romney basically endorsed EVERY SINGLE Obama foreign policy stance. Amazing. The Fox viewers must have been going crazy after all the right-wing crap they've been fed for months didn't make an appearance.

    We have fewer horses and bayonets now, than we did in 1916, too

    This was the line of the evening, a massive smack-down. This and his "let's do some nation-building at home" (a clear smack down to the right's nation-building neo-cons) were Obama's 2 best lines.

    About the only new idea from Mitt Romney tonight was to get an indictment for Iran's Ahmadinejad, for "genocide" because of the "words he has said

    Again, I'd love to hear what the crazy American right thought of this. Apparently you can make a video saying anything you like about Islam but if someone says something bad about Israel INDITE HIM at the UN!

    This election may come down to Michigan and Ohio

    This is almost a CW gaffe ;) If you think Michigan is even going to be close you should probably tell the 2 parties because between them they are literally spending $0 there (same in Pennsylvania except 1 Republican super-pac is spending $1m there; the Obama campaign isn't even bothering to match it which tells you all you need to know about PA...)

    Poll I saw had Obama over Romney 53 to 23.

    This pretty much sums up the debate. It was the 1st debate in reverse with Romney playing the subdued 'Obama' role and Obama playing the attacking aggressive 'Romney' role.

    Romney's strategy was to basically turn up, try not to say anything crazy, try to 'appear Presidential' (like Obama did in debate 1), describe (endorse) the exact foreign policy followed by Obama but do so in detail to show he understands foreign affairs , before trying to score some cheap points on the economy. It was as much a failed strategy as Obama's 'attempt to appear calm, collected and Presidential' in the first debate and, just like the first debate, this strategy led to the candidate being treated like a door-mat.

    Hopefully this has put to bed the Mitt Romney experiment, as Obama should have done in the 1st debate.

    PS. Women moderators destroyed male moderators in these debates! Not even close.

  18. [18] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Overall, history won't remember the second or third debates..
    The First Debate will be the one that goes down in the history books

    Lolol you really do live in an alternate right-wing reality. 'Anything Obama does that is good is instantly forgotten!'

  19. [19] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The Fox viewers must have been going crazy after all the right-wing crap they've been fed for months didn't make an appearance.

    But that's just it, Michty ... at this point all the Fox viewers care about is Romney winning. I take that back. Obama losing. Should Romney win a lot of people are going to wake up the next morning and ask themselves who did we just elect?

    I pointed out to an extremely conservative friend of mine exactly what you said, that Romney basically said the exact same thing as Obama in the debate.

    This didn't please him but didn't really discourage him. Because nothing is more important than beating liberals!

    Now here's the question that really got him. Romney is obviously lying to someone.

    Now the true conservatives think Romney is lying to the moderates.

    What if Romney is really lying to the conservatives?

    This actually in many ways makes more sense because the true conservatives are much more easily controlled. You simply get Fox News or Limbaugh or any of the other pundits to say that Romney is doing a bang up job and they're fine.

    This is some of what I think happened during Bush's presidency. The daily Fox News report was sunny w/ no chance of rain. Until it wasn't.

    Anyways ... it's a tremendously interesting dynamic.

    -David

  20. [20] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Poll I saw had Obama over Romney 53 to 23.

    Well, you know how I feel about polls these days. The only ones I'm even looking at anymore are Gallup, Rasmussen and CNN's post-debate — and I don't even understand why CNN polled registered voters instead of undecideds, who are the only ones who matter at this point.

  21. [21] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Of course you do ... because you're fighting for Romney

    No, it's because I'm watching/listening from the perspective of the undecided voter. And while that tone/attitude may play well with the Left, it's not received the same way by the average human. It comes across as exactly what it is: surly, disrespectful and, arguably, unpresidential.

    and he doesn't look very knowledgable here.

    To whom, D? The Left? According to CNN's after-debate poll, 60% felt Romney was prepared for the role of C.I.C. That's not a good thing for Obama.

  22. [22] 
    michty6 wrote:

    BBC world-wide survey on who the rest of the world would vote for between Obama and Romney:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

    I'm surprised GOP votes are so high worldwide actually - the 9% average seems a little high to me. The UK appears to be about 65-7 in favour of Democrats, again this 7% seems a bit too high imo. I'd be shocked if Republicans polled above 5% in the UK personally...

  23. [23] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's because I'm watching/listening from the perspective of the undecided voter

    You're the undecided voter?

    Have you been talking to a Romney speech writer. Because you sure don't appear undecided.

    I'll admit it. I'm a liberal. It's freeing being a liberal because you can say things like, wow, Obama really looked like he slept through that first debate.

    -David

  24. [24] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I've only seen 1 poll of undecided voters (the CBS one) and it was about as conclusive as polls get. Not a close but whopping win for Obama.

    The same CBS poll gave Romney a clear win in debate 1 and Obama a marginal win in debate 2.

    Even the Republican heavy CNN poll gave Obama a win in debates 2 and 3. Quoting CNN from their own website:

    "The president's eight-point advantage over the former Massachusetts governor came among a debate audience that was slightly more Republican than the country as a whole"

    This is pretty much the same statement they made about their poll post-debate-2 as well...

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/22/cnn-poll-who-won-the-debate/?hpt=hp_t1

  25. [25] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Also, as people on here are aware, I am a fan of aggregating polls as a way to increase the sample and reduce the impact of outliers. Here is an aggregation of the 3 most quoted post-debate polls:

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/10/23/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-1023-debatepollsnew/fivethirtyeight-1023-debatepollsnew-blog480.png

  26. [26] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: His biggest gaffe was when he said Syria was Iran's 'route to the sea' which most people seemed to miss

    What MR was undoubtedly inaccurately recalling from debate prep is that Syrian ports are the only places on the Med that will permit Iranian warships. It was a big deal during the Libyan war, when there was heavy NATO military presence in the Med, that a couple Iranian missile frigates transited Suez; they used a Syrian port.

    A gaffe is a gaffe, but I don't think he's totally geographically clueless.

  27. [27] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Since CW neglected his journalistic duty to post an EV analysis, I will post one :)

    There are 2 ways of looking at the election just now:

    1. STATES WHERE EITHER CANDIDATE HAS A >5 POINT LEAD
    - This is in line with the calculations at RCP on their electoral map
    - It shows: Obama 201 EV, Romney 206 EV, Toss-ups 131 EV. Michigan (16 EV) is right at 5% Obama (so still stays in toss-up land) as is Pennsylvania (20 EV) which is 4.8% Obama. There are no toss-ups in which Romney has >2%. Romney is up in this from previous estimates since North Carolina (15 EV) ticked up to +5.6% Romney so to 'lean Romney'.

    2. STATES WHERE EITHER CANDIDATE HAS A >2 POINT LEAD
    - This is more in line with sites that develop their own model, which tend to define 'toss-ups' as those within a 2% lead. Some use 3% but I think 2% is a reasonable margin of error.
    - It shows: Obama 253 EV, Romney 206 EV, Toss-ups 79 EV. Of the toss-ups, 1 is completely tied (Virginia 13 EV), Romney leads in 2 (Colorado 9 EV, Florida 29 EV) and Obama leads in 3 (Iowa 6 EV, NH 4 EV, Ohio 18 EV).
    - If you gave the States very close to 2% over to the candidate then Iowa (+2%) and Ohio (+1.8%) go to Obama with Florida (+1.8%) going to Romney which would make the scores 277-235.
    - This is basically in line with Huffpo which has it scored 253-191 since it hasn't moved NC to Romney (yet).

  28. [28] 
    Paula wrote:

    Obama definitely won this round. We can quibble over what larger impact it may/may not have, but he most certainly won.

    At first it looked like it was going to be a snore. Mitt was doing his "I'm all for peace" schtick and it was playing pretty well. But as the minutes ticked by the effect began to wane. As Obama confronted him over various previously stated positions the "I'm so reasonable" tone began to morph into "I'll say anything". And the "horses and bayonets" comment was pure magic. Then there were long streams where Mitt either agreed to an Obama policy overtly, or, meandered his way to an agreement buried in something else. Troops out of Afghanistan by 2014 - he basically restated Obama's position on that and gave kudos to it.

    It became clear that Mitt wasn't going to take any risks. He struck me as being gun-shy -- the Benghazi debacle in the 2nd debate haunted the entire evening. Was he being respectful (he actually referred to Obama as Mr. President a couple of times and I liked him better when he did), or simply chicken?

    I listened more than watched, and followed some live blogging throughout, and several people mentioned Mitt's excessive sweating. I didn't see that, but I almost "heard" it.

    The one thing Obama left on the floor was Mitt's statement that he'd repeal Obamacare as "we can't afford it". That deserved a smackdown. I've read that the CNN viewers reacted negatively to that (at least the females did - men were neutral). (To the notion of repeal.)

    The most "read" piece on the NY Times today is Mitt Romney's Auto Bailout Op Ed.

    As has been noted, debates themselves appear to have little impact on the electoral outcome. But the reactions to the debates colors and impacts coverage going forward. The more the press covers Romney's shape shifting the more insincere and opportunistic he appears. And rightly so.

  29. [29] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    several people mentioned Mitt's excessive sweating
    Sweating is a big deal in a debate - as Nixon found out - but only around 30M people watched, so that's not too profound here.

    The one thing Obama left on the floor was Mitt's statement that he'd repeal Obamacare as 'we can't afford it' ... CNN viewers reacted negatively to that (at least the females did - men were neutral). (To the notion of repeal.)
    This is a bigger deal. Opposition to Obamacare has always been an AM radio/Fox issue, but health insurance is a big women's issue.

    The most "read" piece on the NY Times today is Mitt Romney's Auto Bailout Op Ed. This is the biggest deal of all. The more those IP addresses are of readers are OH and PA, the deeper and more problematic is that wound.

  30. [30] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You're the undecided voter?

    No, I'm the advertising professional who's trained to view things through the eyes of the target audience (in this case, undecideds). And O didn't do himself any favors with that surly reply of his.

  31. [31] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I'm the advertising professional who's trained to view things through the eyes of the target audience

    I thought professionals used focus groups so they wouldn't let their own bias intrude.

    -David

  32. [32] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    25 Things Obama Supporters [the "yutes"] Like About Mitt Romney

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/25-things-obama-supporters-like-about-mitt-romney

  33. [33] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Noticed that the self-confessed Tunisian national and social media amateur who participated in the Benghazi attack was grabbed by the Turks and is now in Tunisian custody.

    Given the orientation of the Tunisian government, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the US may be able to threaten Gitmo against spilling the names and staying in Tunisia.

    If that happens, it's not out of the realm that there might still be a drone or special forces hit yet before the election; the President has repeated played the "bring to justice" line in the debates and the stump.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    No mention of climate change in that debate. Wow!

    There's a reason for that...

    A: Scientists in Europe have discovered evidence that the planetary temp has been dropping steadily for the last two thousand years.. Yes, a PEER REVIEWED paper....

    2: The UK Met Office quietly released a data paper on a Friday (thereby insuring it wouldn't get much notice) that stated there has been no appreciable global warming in the last 2 decades...

    Global Warming is going the way of the dinosaurs and the Global Cooling fanatics of the 1970s....

    I'll get to the rest later....

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, as people on here are aware, I am a fan of aggregating polls as a way to increase the sample and reduce the impact of outliers.

    TRANSLATION: I pick the polls that most favor OBAMA to show that Obama is going to win the election..

    :D

    My friend, you are in for a really rude awakening.. :D

    Michale.....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama definitely won this round. We can quibble over what larger impact it may/may not have, but he most certainly won.

    Obama won with his base, who ate all his zippy one-liners up...

    But he looked childish and immature to Independents and NPAs..

    Romney was the only adult in the debate by far...

    Like Biden, Obama was the class clown.... Very UN-presidential....

    Michale....

  37. [37] 
    michty6 wrote:

    But he looked childish and immature to Independents and NPAs..
    Romney was the only adult in the debate by far...
    Like Biden, Obama was the class clown.... Very UN-presidential

    Yes just like Romney was destroyed by Independents and NPA after the first debate when Romney was childish and immature and the CBS poll give him a big victory... Oh wait.

  38. [38] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    NY Times:

    Campaign Moods Shift as Contest Tightens

    With a last aggressive debate performance behind him and 14 grueling days ahead, President Obama is now facing what he worked so hard to avoid: a neck-and-neck race with a challenger gaining ground when it matters most.

    Over the last month, through the debates and a gradual moderation of the conservative tone he struck during the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney undermined the Democrats’ expensive summertime work of casting him as the candidate of and for the rich, emerging as a far more formidable opponent than Mr. Obama had ever expected....
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us/politics/campaign-moods-shift-as-contest-tightens.html?_r=0

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is a CEO who knows how to stick to a strategy.

  39. [39] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michty- You might find this interesting. It's John McCain's opposition research on Romney from 2008

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCain-2008-Oppo-File-on-Romney.pdf

    It's a bit much, but kind of interesting to see the research.

    Lookup Damon Clinical Laboratories ...

    "A Needham clinical laboratory agreed yesterday to pay $119 million in criminal and civil fines after pleading guilty to charges that it defrauded the nation’s Medicare system by seeking reimbursements on millions of dollars worth of unnecessary blood tests. … Damon Clinical Laboratories Inc. admitted it tried to boost its profits by submitting the unnecessary tests. The company, the government said,
    misled doctors into ordering the tests, ensuring that they would be covered by Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly.”

    -David

  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This is a CEO who knows how to stick to a strategy.

    Sorry, Chris. Maybe so. But his strategy is dodgy and mostly consists of help from lots of SuperPACs.

    Just like his "strategy" with Bain. Check out that McCain file. The list of shady Romney/Bain goings on is amazing.

    Everything from deals with jailed junk bond kind Michael Milken to Bain outsourcing the Maytag man.

    -David

  41. [41] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Is that new David?

    I just skimmed it then I saw the section on economic issues. Boy is it bad reading considering what Romney is saying he is going to do:

    - State spending increased at well over rate of inflation under Romney’s watch, estimated at 24% - more than $5 billion – over Romney’s final three years.
    - Under Romney, Massachusetts dramatically underperformed the rest of the nation in terms of job growth.
    - Romney has been criticized by experts for failing to deliver on issues of business development and economic growth after selling himself as the “CEO governor.”
    - 2006 report issued by quasi-public Massachusetts Technology Collaborative warned the state was losing its grip as leader in “innovation economy” and that tech job was alarmingly slow.
    - Romney left his successor to fill a budget deficit exceeding $1 billion.

    So he ran as the business CEO, was awful in job growth and left a massive deficit. Seems like he is running on the same policies now then!

  42. [42] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Wow the counter to the 'bayonet' comment from right-wing news today is to say: 'But they do still use Bayonets!' AMAZING.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/bayonets-still-standard-issue-despite-obama-debate-jab/

  43. [43] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The History Channel Presents a look back at the Romney Presidency:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9cZ1FklzAw

    The scary thing is that these are his policies and this is entirely plausible...

  44. [44] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Nigel Farage goes after the unelected, operating-without-constitution, anti-democratic sock puppets in Brussels once again today.

    I wish that we had politicians who saw the threats to elective democracy as clearly as Mr. Farage.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YSoCZs8WlDg

  45. [45] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Well that's an off topic discussion of Michale proportions LB! Mr Farage is heavily exaggerating there in almost all his statements in that speech LB ;) I'm also confused as to why he calls them unelected when we have European Parliament elections. In fact, (ironically) he himself was elected to that Chamber lol.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    But it's ok, Chris, it's not what Romney is banking on. The anonymous money has come through for him and this could very well tip the scales.

    Do you REALLY want to go there, considering how much money Obama has taken from anonymous donors??

    Michty,

    Your only defense are "polls" and even THEY are against Obama...

    Face the facts.. Obama is going down... On 6 Nov, Americans are going to say, "YOU'RE FIRED" to Obama...

    David,

    Just like his "strategy" with Bain.

    Bain?? Wasn't that the organization that Romney worked for when Clinton said his character was "sterling"???? :D

    Ya'all can throw as much crap on the wall as you wish..

    None of it's going to stick.... In 2 weeks, we'll have President-Elect Romney and ya'all will be dining on Roast Crow, Sauteed Crow, Crow Souffle and, for dessert, Crow-Creme Pie..

    Bring yer appetites, cuz there's gonna be LOTS to go around... :D

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    The scary thing is that these are his policies and this is entirely plausible...

    No.. The "scary" thing is giving Obama and the Democrats 4 more years to wreck the country....

    THAT is scary....

    Michale.....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    We can always talk about Chris Matthews' claim that it's unconstitutional to challenge President Obama..

    THAT discussion would be a hoot, eh? :D

    Michale.....

  49. [49] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Sorry, Chris. Maybe so. But his strategy is dodgy and mostly consists of help from lots of SuperPACs.

    D, I don't fear/loathe SuperPACs any more than I do businesses or the wealthy. No SuperPAC representative is standing outside the voting booth, paying people to vote for their guy. SuperPACs = free speech, is all. They don't "buy elections," as the Left likes to contend.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.infowars.com/obama-supporters-continue-threats-to-riot-assassinate-romney/

    Nothing to worry about???

    I bet if these were threats against Obama, the Left would be singing a different tune, no???

    The Left would be screaming to the high heavens...

    But, since the threats are against a Republican, no one seems to care....

    Iddn't it funny how all-mighty that '-D' is after the name, eh?? :D

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have fewer horses and bayonets now, than we did in 1916, too

    Ya'all realize that a bayonet is STILL standard issue for the USMC, right???

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Is that new David?

    It was the first time I'd seen it posted. And yeah, it was eye opening. It also kind of makes you wonder where the "liberal" media is.

    Of course I'm joking ... the corporate media cares more about the ad dollars than actually reporting anything on either candidate.

    Do you REALLY want to go there, considering how much money Obama has taken from anonymous donors?

    Absolutely, Michale. Here's an excellent graph showing the breakdown of SuperPAC spending ...

    http://graphics.latimes.com/2012-election-superpac-spending/

    SuperPACs have spent $184 million against Obama.

    They've spent $70 million against Romney.

    This is the difference in the election. Not any debates. It will be interesting though to see if the presidential race can be bought. This is the big Republican bet.

    They don't "buy elections" ...

    Really? Then why is who raises the most money so important ...

    I tell you what Chris. If this is really the case, why don't we simply put a cap on how much each candidate gets to spend?

    Or just ban money entirely ... You've got three debates. Then vote.

    BTW- Isn't your entire career based on the fact that advertising influences people?

    -David

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Oh, you've got to at least watch the "the 1980s called" and the "these things called aircraft carriers"... you'll get a chuckle out of them, I promise!

    "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back" ... President Obama

    Heh.

    Mitt Romney sure sounded an awful lot like Ronald Reagan did back then with the comments he made on the military and the projection of US power as the major component of US leadership. But, alas, he's a few decades out of touch with what the reality of the situation is today.

    Furthermore, Romney doesn't seem to understand that America's global leadership role is strengthened when American leads by the power of its example as much as, if not more than, by the example of its power. I learned all about that from Senator Biden, by the way.

    Speaking of whom ... why on earth do you suppose the president was so quick to say, when talking about his decision to go after bin Laden in Pakistan, that his current vice president had the same (implying wrong-headed) critique as Romney did? I'm surprised and grateful that those words have not, to my knowledge, been used to denigrate Vice President Biden throughout the far reaches of the blogosphere. The only apologizing that President Obama needs to be doing publically is to his vice president who just happens to be the most loyal vice president in the history of the United States of America and whose sound judgement and advice - on both foreign and domestic policy - the president has had the singular luxury of being able to rely on over the course of his entire presidency.

  54. [54] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

    Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

    The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

    The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington..... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or just ban money entirely ... You've got three debates. Then vote.

    Obama had the chance to do the right thing back in 2008...

    He chose to go with the big money..

    You can't castigate the Right without including the Left... It's against the rules.. :D

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

    No protest.. Just I said..

    Video was completely irrelevant.. Just as I said...

    Obama lied and people died...

    Strange how we don't hear that from the Left, eh??

    Once again, the all important '-D' raises it's ugly head...

    What's REALLY sad is that, TO THIS DAY, Obama and his minions STILL claim that that stupid video was the reason behind the attack...

    And ya'all wanna give this administration four more years!???

    Michale.....

  57. [57] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    This reeks of a flat-out effort to conceal that a terrorist attack had transpired on the anniversary of 9/11. And all to protect O's reelection campaign. Disgraceful — and the stuff impeachment is made of.

  58. [58] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You can't castigate the Right without including the Left... It's against the rules.. :D

    This is everyone ... period.

    You can't ask one side to not take money and allow another to. This guarantees a winner.

    Now I know you feel good because the money is allowing Romney to pull even and who knows? Maybe even win.

    But what happens when you wake up the next morning and Romney is President?

    I mean, I guess you can still feel good about taking down Obama for a little bit. But then what? Ah ... nevermind, conservatives will find someone else for you to fight and feel good about.

    -David

    p.s. What actually amazes me is how ... even with all of the money Romney has behind him ... how hard he's still finding it.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    This reeks of a flat-out effort to conceal that a terrorist attack had transpired on the anniversary of 9/11. And all to protect O's reelection campaign. Disgraceful — and the stuff impeachment is made of.

    Yep...

    Obama's re-election chances just sunk to zero.

    People died and Obama lied...

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    We have fewer horses and bayonets now, than we did in 1916, too
    Ya'all realize that a bayonet is STILL standard issue for the USMC, right?

    You do know what the word 'fewer' means right? Lol right-wing news and their attempts to redeem their candidate... Of course then there is the fact that the entire statement about 'fewest ships sine 1917' is a complete lie but then most people probably already knew that since everyone is aware of the following formula:

    It came out of Romney's mouth = It is probably a lie

    Obama's re-election chances just sunk to zero.
    People died and Obama lied...

    You really do live in a fantasy world. Fox has being trying to sell you and the people this for months and they still won't give up. If the administration performed so badly why didn't Romney take them to task in the FOREIGN POLICY debate? Of course you are so blind to reality you completely ignore this and will never see past Fox News' latest headlines...

  61. [61] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Fox has being trying to sell you and the people this for months and they still won't give up.

    It's you who are blind, Michty! Not only blind but British which means you like to drink tea in the afternoon which means you're effeminate.

    I don't believe you understand our ways here in America. What is important is that you will never force us to do anything we don't want to do and we know you're trying to force us to do it because someone we trust has told us you liberals would try to force us!

    We're rebels here in America!

    Even if we're rebels fighting for the wealthiest individuals in the nation (not quite sure why we're doing that but ... nevermind ... it's not important). What's important is that you ... a foreigner ... clearly do not understand this great nation of ours. A nation which was founded in seventeen seventy something on the principle of trickle down theory.

    People are taxed you see ... and then the money goes to a few selected individuals (not sure how they're selected but they're probably upstanding ...) and these people then send the money to China and India to hire people there to create products which can be sold here to the people who are taxed. Don't you get it you foolish limey ... this is how business works!

    -David

    :)

  62. [62] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    You forgot to add the part about being allowed to own guns to keep the King of England out of your face!

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You forgot to add the part about being allowed to own guns to keep the King of England out of your face!

    There's a King of England ...?!

    Quick, we'll need guns. And plenty of them. Wifey, fetch my horse. And attach my bayonet. We have plenty of powder, no?

    I must ride ... The British are back and apparently they have a new King!!!

  64. [64] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Alas! You have underestimated the decline of your Navy under the socialist tyrant Obama! Your petty 285 ships will be of no match to our much older (thus more 'experienced') 77 ships! And your petty 11 aircraft carriers no match to our 1 aircraft carrier! Put down your bayonets and surrender!

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Laugh it up all ya want, my friends...

    Those who laugh on 7 November, laugh best... :D

    It's undeniable that Obama lied... When it's a GOP president, this is an unpardonable sin...

    When it's a Dem president, it's defended to the hilt..

    Go figger...

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Laugh it up all ya want

    Awww, Michale. We're just having a little fun. Sometimes ya gotta remember that no matter who gets elected in a couple weeks the world's not going to end.

    -David

  67. [67] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    Come on stop being so blind. The President completely ignored intelligence from the number 1 national intelligence community - Facebook and Twitter - and instead relied on intelligence from the CIA. We cannot afford one more day of this President who openly ignores Facebook and Twitter intelligence. He must go.

  68. [68] 
    akadjian wrote:

    We cannot afford one more day of this President who openly ignores Facebook and Twitter intelligence. He must go.

    Rogue! Scoundrel!

    Stand and deliver ... and give me all of your lupins!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkhx0eqK5w

  69. [69] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    David and michty,
    I just had to log in and say that you two are cracking me up on this thread.

    Thanks for the chuckles. :-)

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, ya'all ignore the facts to protect your lord and master... The intelligence came from people on the ground who were being attacked..

    I am glad ya'all can find humor in our ambassador and three other Americans being brutally murdered...

    Just ask yourself... How would you react if it were a GOP President..

    We saw how the Left went apeshit over nothing more than college hazing at Abu Ghraib....

    But Americans getting brutally murdered???

    We'll crack jokes and say "it's not optimal"...

    Yea... No double standard there, eh?? :^/

    Michale.....

  71. [71] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes this is definitely about the attack, not the desperate attempts of Fox to politicize it in the weeks and months before a Presidential election. I'm sure the day after the election they will definitely still have a Benghazi headline front page for days and days and days...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes this is definitely about the attack, not the desperate attempts of Fox to politicize it in the weeks and months before a Presidential election.

    As opposed to all the desperate attempts by Democrats to politicize torture, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib etc etc etc ad nasuem...

    The difference is that the Democrats' politicizing actually endangered this country's security..

    In other words, all the CT policies that Democrats fought Bush over were the very policies that actually got the job done...

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Policies, I might add, that Democrats will go BACK to opposing in the Romney Administration...

    Nothing like putting Party before Country, eh???

    Michale.....

  74. [74] 
    michty6 wrote:

    As opposed to all the desperate attempts by Democrats to politicize torture, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib etc etc etc ad nasuem...

    Lolol. Seriously? You don't see the difference?

    Yes those are 2 completely different things. CT is a legitimate debate to set what the US policies, rules and legislation will be; Benghazi is a terrorist attack on Americans that Fox is turning into a personal attack on Obama. There is no legitimate debate (or debate of any sorts) just screaming that it's Obama's fault/Obama lied etc. Absolutely nothing to do with policy, everything to do with politicising.

  75. [75] 
    akadjian wrote:

    How would you react if it were a GOP President.

    The same way Fox/the right would react if there wasn't an election in two weeks.

    We'd say it was a tremendously horrible incident and that we should hold those who committed the act accountable.

    We'd pursue the people who committed the crime. Just like Obama did with bin Laden.

    I mean, if the killing of Americans makes you so angry, Michale, how come you're not yelling for someone to get the bastards who did it?

    How come all you're yelling about is Obama?

    Seriously, it's just an election.

    -David

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, if the killing of Americans makes you so angry, Michale, how come you're not yelling for someone to get the bastards who did it?

    How come all you're yelling about is Obama?

    The same reason ya'all yelled at Bush because of the college pranks at Abu Ghraib...

    Why is it when a Democrat screws up, all ya'all want to talk about are the perps??

    When a Republicans screws up, all ya'all want to talk about is how badly the Republican screwed up..

    As always, it works both ways... :D

    Michale.....

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would be more inclined to move beyond Obama if you could just admit that your guy screwed up..

    But until you can admit that, there doesn't really seem to be any point to moving on, since there is no common frame of reality...

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Since there is no common frame of reality.

    This I'll give you.

    p.s. They may have got the guy ...

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57539382/tunisia-libya-consulate-attack-suspect-arrested/

  79. [79] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Why is it when a Democrat screws up, all ya'all want to talk about are the perps??
    When a Republicans screws up, all ya'all want to talk about is how badly the Republican screwed up.

    Who is "ya'll" in these statements? That old fictional character you invented that represents the 'left'?

    It amazes me that this is front page news all day today for Fox. A guy running for US Senate said that pregnancies caused by rape were God's plan - yet this is completely ignored. To give you perspective, the Senate candidates comments were covered by the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20054737) but there isn't a chance in hell the moronic 'email intelligence' made up fiasco would be because they are a real news agency that covers real news...

    As David pointed out from the second this attack happened Romney, Fox and all the right-wing news politicised it, using it to attack Obama and ignoring the actual issue at heart. Even though Romney has (smartly) stopped Fox just cannot let it go.

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I would be more inclined to move beyond Obama if you could just admit that your guy screwed up.

    I've read a lot about the Libya subject. From both credible and conservative sources.

    From my understanding, it seems that early intelligence reports about the attacks were mixed and that government officials wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

    What would you have done differently, Michale?

    Seriously, the controversy really seems like much ado about nothing. Before an election.

    How much do you want to bet that this issue disappears after the election?

    -David

  81. [81] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- What's up with Donald Trump? Is that guy feeling left out again?

  82. [82] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I saw the Trump thing and I honestly thought it was an Onion News joke. Basically there were so many joke pre-announcements that I thought the ACTUAL announcement was another one of these jokes! Heck, even Fox News didn't cover it in any major manner that's how dumb it was...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    What would you have done differently, Michale?

    I wouldn't have tried for 10 days to cover up that it was a terrorist attack by blaming some obscure video and some non-existent protest...

    CAN you admit that Obama et al screwed up by doing this??

    If you can't, no reasonable discussion on this issue is possible..

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's examine the facts once again..

    There WAS no protest..

    Obama et al claimed for TEN DAYS that the attack began as a protest...

    That obscure video had NOTHING to do with the Benghazi terrorist attack...

    Obama et al are claiming, TO THIS DAY, that the video was responsible, at least partially..

    "None of these facts are in dispute, Mr President!!"
    -Klingon Ambassador, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

    So, given these absolute and undeniable facts, I simply cannot understand why ya'all can't (or, more accurately, WON'T) concede that Obama et al scrooed the pooch....

    They lied about a terrorist attack because they felt it would hurt the re-election chances..

    Lowest of the low....

    It is THIS exact kind of denial of reality that WILL cause Obama to lose the election...

    Basically, Obama (and ya'all) are believing his own press releases and simply ignoring the reality of the here and now....

    Michale.....

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/24/is-obama-less-respectful-than-your-average-jock/

    "Oh how the mighty have fallen....."
    -Guinan, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, Deja Q

    Michale......

  86. [86] 
    michty6 wrote:

    RE 83:

    Yes we should admit that Obama is an evil usurper trying to destroy America and cover up terrorist attacks by his buddies so we can have a reasonable conversation! Amazing.

    Michale you are so far down the right-wing rabbit hole there is no having a 'reasonable' conversation. A 'reasonable' perspective is that 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack that is still being investigated and that from the very second the attack happened - in fact while it was still underway - Romney and the right-wing media began attacking Obama before they had any clue what was going on, because they know how strong Obama is on foreign policy (see the last debate) and thought they could score cheap political points. Romney, to his credit, is at least not dumb enough to continue to keep trying to score cheap political points over the death of 4 Americans. Fox news.... Not so much.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    The more you deny, the more you show how far up Obama's butt you are...

    It's a simple question..

    DID OBAMA ET AL frak up by lying and trying to make a terrorist attack into a protest gone bad???

    Yes or No??

    Four Americans, including our Ambassador were killed in that attack..

    Don't they deserve to have their deaths explained fully and without ANY bullshit whatsoever???

    Don't the American people deserve a president that won't LIE just to save his political skin???

    You constantly bring up Fox News.. I am talking about the facts..

    Your desperate attempts to change the subject and fade any heat you can from Obama et al is downright embarrassing to witness...

    Just answer ONE simple question..

    Did Obama and his crew screw up by lying about the terrorist attack.

    YES or NO...

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If you can't, no reasonable discussion on this issue is possible.

    I just want to examine this statement of yours for a second, Michale.

    Basically, you're saying if we don't agree with you then no reasonable discussion is possible.

    I suppose if all you want is agreement with you then you're correct, no discussion is possible.

    None of this changes the fact that it will all go away after the election.

    We don't have to discuss, but I know you're a betting man. You sure you don't want to place some kind of bet on this if it's a real scandal? Because I think it's pretty safe to say we'll never hear about it again after the election.

    -David

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Florida-Republican-Party-leader-receives-hoax-letter-FBI-investigates/-/1637132/17117694/-/acss1ez/-/index.html

    Again...

    Given all the screaming about Voter ID = Disenfranchisement, one has to wonder, eh??

    Of course, it's nothing.... If it disenfranchises Republican voters, no big deal, right??

    Michale.....

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Basically, you're saying if we don't agree with you then no reasonable discussion is possible.

    Let me put it to you this way...

    Let's say we are discussing the birth of our nation and you absolutely refuse to admit George Washington was the first president of our country..

    How can we have a reasonable discussion on the birth of this nation if you won't agree on the most basic of facts??

    So it is with the Benghazi discussion..

    The Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that there was no protest, that it was a terrorist attack..

    Hell, *I* knew TWELVE HOURS EARLIER!!

    So, if you cannot concede the most basic of facts (Obama et al lied) then HOW can we possible have a rational discussion about the issue/incident??

    It would be like trying to have a geography discussion with a person who won't concede that the earth is round...

    You see the problem???

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [7] -

    You obviously haven't heard the multiple times Obama has given credit to Romney for Romneycare.

    Heh.

    David [12] -

    I think if I was in Ohio I'd have chucked my TV out the window, by now...

    michty6 [17] -

    Yeah, I forgot about that water gaffe. When I heard him say that, my reaction was "Iran is surrounded on two sides with water!" Then I looked, and Iran doesn't even touch Syria. Whoopsie, Mitt!

    As for MI and OH, I was taking the bigger-picture view that Romney was said to have a chance in both states very early on (his dad was gov. of MI and he was born there), but that the Detroit op-ed put both out of reach for him. I don't expect MI will be close, now.

    As for women moderators, I'd like to see Gwen Ifill get a shot next time around.

    Chris1962 -

    Take a look at Obama's job approval ratings since the third debate. I'm just sayin'...

    michty6 [27] -

    That's pretty close to what I posted Tuesday, I have to say...

    LeaningBlue [29] -

    I heard 60m people watched the third debate. that's pretty impressive.

    O Great And Wise Michale [46, and others] -

    Since you've seen the future so clearly, please give us the benefit of your wisdom and tell us which of the 8 tossup states Romney's going to win? [Oh, wait, you'll have to go to Tuesday's column to do so properly, sorry (I'm answering a whole bunch of comments right now, I get confused).]

    Chris1962 [49] -

    I'm hearing rumors that some Republicans (mostly House) are getting fed up with superPAC money because it's being used against them very effectively. It would be a hoot if campaign finance reform came out of a GOP House, wouldn't it? "Only Nixon could go to China" and all of that...

    Heh.

    Michale [51] -

    Um, how about "horses and Springfield rifles" would that work? Don't the Marines still have swords in their full dress uniform, too?

    :-)

    LizM -

    I thought you'd like that quip. As for "current" I don't think it was intended as anything other than subtly differentiating him from "candidate" Paul Ryan, personally. Obama loves Biden!

    michty6 [60] -

    Snerk, snerk, snerk. I liked your equation.

    David [63] -

    Heh. Don't forget, though, that famous historian Sarah Palin telling us Paul Revere rode to warn the British that... um... something, I forget.

    Heh. I agree with ninjaf [69] -- too funny!

    akadjian [81] -

    You had me at "What's up with Donald Trump?" Seriously, you can stop right there...

    Michale [83] -

    Please let us know, what exactly would be different now in the situation on the ground, if Obama had done what you suggest?

    Here's a quick test for you, Michale: if Obama announced tomorrow that we had killed every person responsible for the Benghazi attack, would you denounce it as an election trick or "October Surprise" or would you support the action?

    I bet I know the answer to that question.

    Woo hoo! I finished answering the comments!

    -CW

  92. [92] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, and just for the record, the "Panda Bear" just hit his SECOND HOME RUN and it's only the 3rd inning!

    GO GIANTS!

    :-)

    -CW

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Um, how about "horses and Springfield rifles" would that work? Don't the Marines still have swords in their full dress uniform, too?

    We're talking battle issue, not dress uniforms..

    I'm just sayin', let the military experts disassemble the military references.. :D

    Please let us know, what exactly would be different now in the situation on the ground, if Obama had done what you suggest?

    Asked and answered..

    I wouldn't have tried to deny that it was a terrorist attack to pursue a political/re-election agenda..

    Now, Obama not only looks weak and ineffective, he looks conniving and Machiavellian, willing to cast our Ambassador's life on the altar of a protest gone bad..

    In effect, Obama tried to lay the blame for the death of our Ambassador and three other Americans at the feet of an obscure American filmmaker....

    If that's not cowardly and lacking of integrity then I don't know what is...

    All I ask you all to do is consider what YOUR reaction would have been if it had been a GOP President instead of a Dem president...

    Ya'all would be saying the EXACT same things I am saying.. The only difference is we would ALL be in agreement.... :D

    Oh, and just for the record, the "Panda Bear" just hit his SECOND HOME RUN and it's only the 3rd inning!

    GO GIANTS!

    TOUCHDOWN GIANTS!!!!!!! :D

    Michale.....

  94. [94] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You see the problem?

    I see you keep ignoring my bet, Michale.

    If it's not pure politics, why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

    :)

    -David

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since you've seen the future so clearly, please give us the benefit of your wisdom and tell us which of the 8 tossup states Romney's going to win? [Oh, wait, you'll have to go to Tuesday's column to do so properly, sorry (I'm answering a whole bunch of comments right now, I get confused).]

    I am just a low-level knuckle dragging ground pounder.. I leave higher political thunking to ya'all gurus...

    But I believe that I am representative of Joe Q Six(Twelve) Pack and I can say with complete authority that Obama just doesn't do it for me anymore..

    And I think Joe and Jane SixPack will feel the same way...

    If I am wrong, hay... I'm wrong and this country is going the way of Greece..

    "If I'm wrong... Nothing happens... We go to jail... Peacefully... Quietly... We'll enjoy it... But if I'm right... And we can stop this thing.... LENNY.... YOU will have saved the lives of MILLIONS of registered voters..."
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    But if I am right.... There will be a CROW feast the likes that NO ONE has ever seen... And I will be the Maitre'de in charge of serving said Crow Feast... :D

    The only question will be will the Left accept the will of the people.....

    What say ya'all???

    If Romney wins the election, will ya'all accept it???

    Or will it be a repeat of the 2000 election???

    THAT is the question......

    Michale..

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see you keep ignoring my bet, Michale.

    As you are ignoring my question...

    One simple question...

    Did Obama make a mistake by lying about the Benghazi Terrorist attack???

    You answer my question, I'll take your bet... :D

    Michale.....

  97. [97] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Let's get back to this Benghazi thing.

    What's the chance that it goes away after the election?

    -David

  98. [98] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Did Obama make a mistake by lying about the Benghazi Terrorist attack?

    Ok. The question is malformed. First of all, I don't see any lies about the attack. Therefore, it's impossible to make a mistake by lying when no lying ever took place.

    Now about this bet ...

    -David

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ok. The question is malformed. First of all, I don't see any lies about the attack.

    And therein lies the breakdown in communication..

    Obama et al KNEW within 24 hours that:

    A> There was no protest..

    B> It was a terrorist attack...

    Yet, the administration choose to lie about it and portray the attack as a protest against an obscure film gone bad. And they CONTINUE to do that to this day....

    This is documented fact..

    Since you cannot concede these basic facts, ANY discussion from that point outward is rendered moot, because the basic facts cannot be agreed upon...

    If we can't have a discussion based in reality, what's the point in HAVING a discussion??

    This IS a "reality-based" forum, after all...

    If we can't agree that water is wet.......

    "The sky is blue, water is wet, women have secrets"
    -Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOYSCOUT

    .... then any discussion moving forward is simply moot....

    Let's agree on the facts and then move on from there.....

    Michale...

  100. [100] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The Superpower as Bystander

    ...When something bad happens at a consulate on the other side of the world, very few nations have the technological capability to watch it in real time.

    Even fewer have fighter jets and special forces within less than 500 miles — or about the distance from Boston to Washington.

    Yet the commander-in-chief chose to do nothing. He chose to let the enemy determine the course of events, how long the battle would last, how many Americans would die. The only choice he made was to hold a photo-op at their coffins.

    That’s a metaphor for an enfeebled superpower: On 9/11/12, America had technological capability and military superiority, but no leadership....

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331197/superpower-bystander-mark-steyn#

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, you're saying if we don't agree with you then no reasonable discussion is possible.

    Agreeing with me has absolutely NOTHING to do with it..

    Agreeing on the basic facts is the whole point.

    It is well-documented that the Obama Administration knew that there was no protest in Benghazi prior to the attack. Yet, for 10 days, Obama et al lied to the American people and said that the Benghazi attack grew out of a protest.

    This is fact.

    It is also well-documented that the Obama Administration had reasonable and compelling intelligence that some obscure YouTube video had absolutely nothing to do with the Benghazi Attack. Yet, to this day, Obama et al STILL claim that the anti-Islam video has some connection to the Benghazi attack.

    This is fact.

    There are many good reasons for our government to tell us lies. To protect on-going operations, to protect UCs are a couple of those good reasons.

    Lying to the American people in a vain attempt to save a re-election is about the WORST reason there is to lie..

    Until we can agree on the basic facts that are well-documented and well-supported, any reasonable discussion on this issue is impossible..

    If we were talking about ANYTHING other than Left v Right politics, I am certain you would be in complete agreement of this assessment..

    Michale...

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet the commander-in-chief chose to do nothing. He chose to let the enemy determine the course of events, how long the battle would last, how many Americans would die. The only choice he made was to hold a photo-op at their coffins.

    That’s a metaphor for an enfeebled superpower: On 9/11/12, America had technological capability and military superiority, but no leadership....

    If that doesn't convince ya'all of the complete and utter impotence and lack of leadership that Obama exhibits, NOTHING will...

    But, therein lies the problem. NOTHING will convince ya'all that Obama is simply the wrong man for the job.. Despite overwhelming and irrefutable evidence...

    Once again, the all-powerful '-D' strikes again...

    Michale....

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    A U.S. ambassador is missing and his diplomatic team is desperately fighting off terrorist attacks. Our commander-in-chief and his national-security team in Washington are listening to the phone calls from the Americans under attack and watching real-time video from a drone circling overhead. Yet the U.S. military sends no aid. Why?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331125/first-aid-living-bing-west#more

    I would like to also ask that question..

    WHY!?

    Why did Obama et al sit there passively, watch our people die IN REAL TIME and SEND NO AID!??

    Every American in this country should be asking this question of their government.

    WHY!?

    If we can't trust our leadership to look out for the safety and lives of our representatives in foreign lands, then we need to make changes in that leadership..

    I am simply gabberflasted that I even have to argue this point...

    Obama et al sat idly by and watched our people die in REAL TIME and did NOTHING!

    WHY!?

    Michale.....

  104. [104] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Sept. 12- Rose Garden address

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: 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.

    Sept 13- Campaign Event in Colorado

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world.

    Sept 13- Las Vegas Nevada

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.

    Now the sad thing is that none of this will matter to you, Michale.

    Because, as you stated, you've already made up your mind and no rational discussion can be had.

    In fact, I believe CW that if Obama caught the terrorists and killed them, you would say that this was to get re-elected.

    In other words, you'd politicize an act of terror. You're the only one doing what you say you hate about President Obama.

    The other thing that's amazing is that you're somehow able to justify doing exactly what you say you hate about someone else.

    And you know what I'm saying is true because you know all of this is going to disappear after the election.

    So if you want to see someone politicizing an act of terror, you don't have to go very far.

    Seriously, take some personal responsibility dude. Is an election really worth it?

    -David

  105. [105] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    This is why I usually just ignore Michale when he talks about Benghazi since he is just repeating what is on Fox News. I can tell you his response:
    - Obama covered up the fact it was a terrorist attack because it might hurt his re-election (even though terrorist attacks usually boost the President's standing). Thus he was politicising it
    - Romney, Fox et al. are totally not politicising it by using a terrorist attack on Americans to attack the President. Not at all.
    etc.

    Michale
    If I am wrong, hay... I'm wrong and this country is going the way of Greece.

    The sad thing about this is you couldn't be more wrong - not about the election, but your Greece comment. Greece got sky high deficits by not taxing it's citizens. In particular, not taxing it's high earners or professionals.

    There is only 1 candidate who wants to follow this formula (clue: it is not Obama).

  106. [106] 
    akadjian wrote:

    This is why I usually just ignore Michale when he talks about Benghazi since he is just repeating what is on Fox News.

    There's a lot of differences though between Michale and Fox.

    1. Michale genuinely cares about preventing terrorism. I disagree w/ his approach, but he usually means well. Fox on the other hand really doesn't.

    2. Though what he says makes me angry sometimes, I genuinely like Michale and he keeps me honest. Whereas Fox is a pure political machine which I don't have fondness for.

    This said, I try to remember when things get a little heated that my real battle is with Fox, not Michale.

    I admire his fight, I just don't usually agree with what he's fighting for :)

    -David

  107. [107] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And to lighten the mood ... a little Stephen Colbert on Donald Trump :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlvQW7tI4aE&feature=player_embedded

  108. [108] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    Oh I like Michale way more than I like Fox/Rupert Murdoch :)

    Just because I disagree with almost every single thing he says doesn't mean I don't like him!

  109. [109] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: if Obama announced tomorrow that we had killed every person responsible for the Benghazi attack...

    Two down now. One held in Tunisia, one "blew himself up making a bomb" in Egypt yesterday. The first, also, spent at least three days in the hands of NATO-member Turkey.

    It seems increasingly clear these guys were not highly trained. They will probably just quietly all have accidents.

  110. [110] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Now we just need to nail the man at the head of the entire evil terrorist plot.

    But don't worry! Fox is on it. They have outlined a detailed profile of the maniac who caused this attack: he is believe to be Kenyan born, educated in America, learned to hate America from a young age, is a Muslim fanatic, has socialist political leanings and is named after Saddam Hussein - who was probably a close friend of his family.

  111. [111] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    David,
    I think you have done a great job laying out the facts for Michale but you are also correct that he will ignore them. It doesn't matter what the facts are, they are not Teh Truth™.
    I think it is telling that the family members of the Americans who were killed in this attack have all asked that these deaths not be politicized and judgement be reserved for when all of the facts are available. I would think if anyone would have a vested interest in knowing who knew what and when, it would be them. And they are not making the media rounds blaming the President for not labeling it a terror attack fast enough.

  112. [112] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Oh dear: Doubts surface over e-mail on claim of responsibility for Benghazi attack

    I'm sure Fox will run this front page, and apologise for their exaggerated claims. LOL.

    http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/doubts-surface-over-e-mail-on-claim-of-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/?hpt=hp_t3

  113. [113] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I know you are well gone down the rabbit hole Michale but maybe this lady, a former CIA military analyst, can change your mind:

    Government e-mails sent about two hours after the attack and obtained by CNN show that an Islamist group, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility for Benghazi on Facebook and Twitter, one of many channels of information intel analysts need to examine before reaching conclusions. The group denied responsibility the next day.

    Claims such as these need to be corroborated. Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility after attacks; obviously claims of responsibility are often false. It's also possible that the attackers had ties to multiple groups, or had different motives. Expecting policymakers to publicly examine and go through every conflicting piece of intelligence collected in the hours before and after an attack would be unreasonable and potentially even damaging to national security...

    In the final days leading up to the election, we must evaluate the performance of intelligence gathering in Benghazi in a fair and objective manner, with every effort to omit our biases and political views.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/opinion/maller-cia-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    A psychotic going into a theater and shooting the place up is an "act of terror"...

    It's NOT a terrorist attack.

    An earthquake is a naturally occurring "act of terror"....

    It's NOT a terrorist attack..

    Nice try though. Obama tried that bogus claim... It fell just as flat...

    You are not relaying facts.. You are relaying beliefs...

    The FACT is, Obama et al claimed that the video was responsible..

    True or false???

    The FACT is, Obama et al claimed there was a protest.

    True or false???

    Why is it simply IMPOSSIBLE for you people to admit that Obama frak'ed up??

    I find this completely baffling that you ignore EACH and EVERY fact that is before your eyes and continue to discuss SPIN as if it were fact....

    Michale.....

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ignoring for the moment ya'alls complete and utter incapability of finding any fault with Obama or his actions, I am curious...

    A U.S. ambassador is missing and his diplomatic team is desperately fighting off terrorist attacks. Our commander-in-chief and his national-security team in Washington are listening to the phone calls from the Americans under attack and watching real-time video from a drone circling overhead. Yet the U.S. military sends no aid. Why?

    No response to this???

    There's a lot of differences though between Michale and Fox.

    1. Michale genuinely cares about preventing terrorism. I disagree w/ his approach, but he usually means well. Fox on the other hand really doesn't.

    2. Though what he says makes me angry sometimes, I genuinely like Michale and he keeps me honest. Whereas Fox is a pure political machine which I don't have fondness for.

    This said, I try to remember when things get a little heated that my real battle is with Fox, not Michale.

    I admire his fight, I just don't usually agree with what he's fighting for :)

    That's why I find it impossible to stay frustrated with ya'all...

    Whenever my steam hits over-boil, ya'all remind me that it's just a debate/discussion/argument and, in the larger scheme of things, there are much MUCH more important things...

    Like beer... :D

    Thanx...

    But seriously... I challenge ya'all.....

    From now until the election...

    Once a day, find SOMETHING wrong with Obama...

    And I'll reciprocate and find something wrong with Romney....

    I'll start off..

    Mitt!! For the gods sake!! Loosen up and have a beer!!! :D

    Michale......

  116. [116] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Once a day, find SOMETHING wrong with Obama

    Absolutely. I wish he would stop saying that his plan is to "ask the wealthy to pay a little more". Nothing could be further from the truth. What he is actually proposing is closer to 'asking the wealthy to give us back their tax cuts' or 'stop giving the wealthy tax cuts and return them to the tax position they were in before we started giving them, and them alone, tax cuts'.

    The way he puts it, it sounds like the plan is to INCREASE taxes on the wealthy. In fact, the plan is to stop giving them tax cuts that no-one else gets - the first step being for them to give back the tax cuts they got that no-one else got.

    Ok maybe I see why he chooses the wording but come on, there must be a catchy way of saying this!

    I'm sure you too are annoyed at this Michale... ;)

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    THAT'S the spirit!!! :D

    Kudos....

    Michale.....

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    But in answer to your question before, David...

    Yes... Regardless of who wins the election, we will hear a LOT about Benghazi for the next several months..

    Michale.....

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm sure you too are annoyed at this Michale...

    I am... It also annoys me to hear the Left scream about about the rich paying "their fare share" when they actually mean, "Since you have more money than others, pay THAT.. And then pay some more... And then pay more until you are as broke as everyone else."

    That's what the Left REALLY means, so why not just come out and say it???

    When you take away the fruits of success, you take away the incentive to succeed..

    And without anyone striving for success, you get.... Exactly where this country is right now...

    Michale.....

  120. [120] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It also annoys me to hear the Left scream about about the rich paying "their fare share" when they actually mean, "Since you have more money than others, pay THAT.. And then pay some more... And then pay more until you are as broke as everyone else."

    Lol I don't think you understood my point at all Michale. My point was that the rich have been giving preferential tax treatment for about 15 years now (tax cuts for them, but not for the rest of us) and that Obama should point this out more.

    And without anyone striving for success, you get.... Exactly where this country is right now...

    The funny thing about this is that Obama has not raised taxes at all. Taxes on the wealthy were reduced under Bush in 2001 and 2003. All those tax cuts remain.

    So yes I completely agree. If you give tax cuts to the wealthy and the wealthy alone you ABSOLUTELY get exactly where this country is just now. This is why Obama wants to change it.

  121. [121] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    Without even trying to find out information on this story, but rather just via mainstream news sources (watching CBS Evening News), I've been able to find the information you say does not exist.
    They didn't just sit on their hands and do nothing:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57539738/u.s-military-poised-for-rescue-in-benghazi

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57536611/could-u.s-military-have-helped-during-libya-attack
    And yet another rebuttal to your continued insistence that this was not labeled as a terrorist attack until days/weeks/months/years later:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11

    Fourteen hours after the attack, President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" for a previously scheduled interview and said he did not believe it was simply due to mob violence.

    "You're right that this is not a situation that was -- exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start," Mr. Obama said.

    As for taxing the rich, most liberals I know do not hate people for being rich and think they should be punished. But rather they feel that everyone should feel the pain of taxes the same—which is not the same as everybody paying the same percentage of their income. Thirty per cent of your income at $20,000 per year hurts a lot more than it does at $200,000 per year.

    I am thinking on your challenge for things that I don't agree with President Obama about. I know I have them, but I must not have had enough caffeine yet today...

  122. [122] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Haha I saw this cartoon and instantly thought of this discussion: http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/dividing-america.jpg

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point was that the rich have been giving preferential tax treatment for about 15 years now (tax cuts for them, but not for the rest of us) and that Obama should point this out more.

    Do you complain when people who pay for first class on an airplane get "preferential treatment"???

    The funny thing about this is that Obama has not raised taxes at all. Taxes on the wealthy were reduced under Bush in 2001 and 2003. All those tax cuts remain.

    Then tell the Left to quit whining and crying about "Fair Share"....

    Michale.....

  124. [124] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Do you complain when people who pay for first class on an airplane get "preferential treatment"?

    A better analogy would be if the airline said:

    "You can have the exact same seat as that guy over there except we have given him a 20% discount because a bunch of people (who, completely coincidentally, he donated lots of money to) have decided he is a 'job-creator' and you are not... What? You think this is unfair? How dare you! That's class warfare!

    Evidence? We don't believe in evidence. There are lots of variables! The numbers will magically balance eventually, you'll just have to trust us. What's that you say? We've been trying this for 15 years and it hasn't worked? Well I say that if it doesn't work we should double down on the policy and give him a 30% discount and we will see if that works! You think this is unfair? Ha! You haven't seen what we're going to do to your healthcare and other basic rights..."

    Then tell the Left to quit whining and crying about "Fair Share".

    Or maybe you should acknowledge the fact that tax cuts have completely and utterly failed economically, as the Bush-Obama years have shown and it is time to stop presenting them as the solution to all of lives problems? You can argue forever about 'fair' but a better word is FAILED. That, there is no denying.

  125. [125] 
    michty6 wrote:
  126. [126] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do you complain when people who pay for first class on an airplane get "preferential treatment"?

    If the people on our "US airplane" would pay, I wouldn't have a problem.

    It's that they keep trying to get out of paying :)

    And then they use their media networks to say that the people who are paying are waging "class warfare".

    There's only one class who's waging war and unfortunately they've been winning for the past 30 years.

    -David

  127. [127] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    If the people on our "US airplane" would pay, I wouldn't have a problem.

    Or if all people pay the same price relative to their use of the airplane and how much the airplane benefits them! This is when 'fair' comes into it.

  128. [128] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    It's Friday, and a slow news day at that.

    So I gotta say: what's with this "Frankenstorm" business? Who came up with that?

    Everybody knows it's Stormageddon.

    That is all.

  129. [129] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LeaningBlue -

    Hah! I wrote Friday's column before I saw your comment here, I think you'll appreciate the intro. I have ranted before on the "-maggedon" and "-pocalypse" thing before...

    My response was to wonder what Al Franken thought about "Frankenstorm"... Heh. Check out Friday's column!

    -CW

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]