Romney wins

I think Romney did better than Obama, despite Obama’s filibustering. But Obama did well too. IMO, this will be another case where both sides think their guy won. But in a larger sense, I think Romney won. Let me tell you why.

The Obama folks spent millions of dollars to paint Romney as a horrible person who pushes people off cliffs and rips off the poor. Obama's strategy was not to say his administration had been a success but rather to make Romney seem unacceptable as president.

Reasonable people could differ about who won the debate. This means Romney won because he proved that he is indeed not the horrible guy Obama propaganda painted. All that money Obama spent to trash Romney was negated. If the challenger can equal the person who has been president for four years, it shows the weakness of the president.

Lots of people have been disappointed with Obama, but they worried that there was no alternative. Now that there is an alternatives, Obama can be discarded. People now feel "permission" to not vote for Obama.

Others have compared Obama to the Wizard of Oz. His machine made him look great & powerful. Now that he is just a man, we don't have to settle for what this little man has given us for these last four years. Romney won and I think he will win the election.

Posted by Christine & John at October 16, 2012 10:26 PM
Comment #354651

For one thing Obama did lie about the drilling permits, I just heard a commentator say that permits were down by over 50%, that is on federal lands. He lied about Libya, he said the buck stops with him but why did he let Hillary take the shot. Obama was good with the words but I want someone who backs up his words and for the last four years Obama has not backed up his. So with that I give Romney the win because we all know what Obama has one. Obama did show up for this debate I’ll give him that.

Posted by: KAP at October 16, 2012 11:01 PM
Comment #354654

I thought Obama ‘won’ the debate.Romney did better on the energy question. Both candidates made a hash of the first question about education and student loans. Maybe they were both nervous. Maybe they both reverted to standard canned responses too quickly, and failed to understand a young college graduate’s concerns. Obama did better on immigration and women. Romney has apparently changed his position again re the Blount Amendment. He supported it before. Now he opposes it?

But the moment that gave Obama the win was clear cut: Romney blew it on Libya. He got caught in a lie. “Check the transcript,” Obama said. And the moderator corrected Romney on the spot. That suprised me. I thought Crowley was a Republican. Anyway, it discredited Romney right there, on the spot, in front of the entire country.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2012 11:12 PM
Comment #354655


The Libya Obama got on a technicality. He used the term terror in a very general sense, but pushed the idea that it was spontaneous response to the video. Rice was on TV saying that. It was a great gotcha by Obama but it won’t stand up long.

I think Obama has to win big just to stay even. He did not do that. Romney didn’t put Obama away, however.

Posted by: C&J at October 16, 2012 11:22 PM
Comment #354656

Romney won, the earth is flat, and the tooth fairy gives you money for your teeth. All three are lies. How can any conservative listen to Romney tell you he has a 5 point plan that will generate 12 million jobs and later on tell you the government cannot create jobs?

Better yet conservatives tell me what exactly is Romney’s position on anything. He has flip flopped so many times that it seems he agrees with everyone about everything except women and contraception costs covered by insurance. You guys will fall for anything.

George Will told us Obama was the clear winner in this debate, but he probably isn’t a real conservative right guys?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 16, 2012 11:23 PM
Comment #354657


This is spin. You knew Obama lost the first debate. Most of the country agreed with you that it was a draw in the VP debate. Now I think the public will disagree with you on this one.

Romney was off balance the whole night. He kept getting off track about the timing and rebuttals and it allowed us to see the real Romney (the robotic, mechanical version) and the the real Obama (the calm, cool and collected one). What you saw in the first debate was just a fluke that you hoped would continue on but it hasn’t. There’s also hope for the 3rd debate though.

Phx8: “But the moment that gave Obama the win was clear cut: Romney blew it on Libya.”

I agree. This was supposed to be Obama’s weak spot and Romney wound up so hard with his prepared remarks that when he swung and missed Obama he ended up falling on his face and flopping around for a good 30 seconds in front of everyone. It wasn’t presidential. It was painful. Get him the big red nose and the giant floppy clown shoes and book him for an interview on the Sean Hannity show.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 16, 2012 11:29 PM
Comment #354658


Let’s see.

The media was hoping to write an Obama comeback story. Let’s see what the people say.

Posted by: C&J at October 16, 2012 11:32 PM
Comment #354659

Re-watchin the clip, President Obama to Romney over the Rose Garden speech:

Please proceed, Governor.

Yes, proceed Governor, you’re just a few steps away from slipping on your own banana peel.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 16, 2012 11:37 PM
Comment #354660

Two things should fall from the Right tonight but probably won’t:

1. That the attack in Libya was not motivated by a YouTube video. It was.

2. That Obama refused to call it an act of terror until n days after the attack. He did.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 16, 2012 11:47 PM
Comment #354661

CNN calls it for Obama but it was close. This was a step back for Romney and his narrative against the president.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 16, 2012 11:51 PM
Comment #354662

Adam, Obama’s Rose Garden speech mentioned the word terror but did NOT mention terrorist actions. If it was known to be a terrorist attack that very day then why did Rice go on five different shows and say it was about a video, why did Obama go on the View, Letterman, and the U.N. Podium and NOT say that it was a terrorist attack always saying about a video. Obama LIED about the drilling permits those permits on private lands were from the Bush years. Permits are down on federal lands by over 50%. The only banana peel is going to be Obama slipping on it.

Posted by: KAP at October 16, 2012 11:53 PM
Comment #354663

CBS calls it for Obama as well but still close. This isn’t a knockout punch for Obama but it will go a long way toward getting him his grove back. He’ll get a couple of cycles of positive spin…

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 16, 2012 11:56 PM
Comment #354664


So Obama mentions acts of terror and in the next sentence the death of four Americans, but that’s not specific enough? It was an act of terror, and it was motivated by the video as far as we still know. The only thing they were wrong about was whether it was spontaneous or premeditated and that is of little consequence overall except to those looking to use it as a club against the president.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 12:02 AM
Comment #354665


Romney was misleading again. Shocker. Romney wants you to ignore the years that drilling went up under Obama and some of the years it went down under Bush and focus only on a year where drilling is down because of the shutdown after Deepwater. When I think of Deepwater I picture conservatives hollering, “Drill, baby, drill!”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 12:10 AM
Comment #354666

Adam he mentions acts of terror, but never says terror attack again for over 2 weeks. Carney avoids the questions and says nothing about terror attack. Rice in five interviews never says it was a terror attack, On the View, Letterman and the Kicker in front of the U.N. he blames it on a video. They had a video on the attack in real time. They blew a hole in the Embassy wall months before the 9/11 attack. The British ambassador was almost killed. What more evidence do you need to say this was a planned attack that had nothing to do with a cheap video. He has said that Bin Ladin is dead and so is Al Queda, this proves they are alive and well.

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2012 12:16 AM
Comment #354668

Nothing new was learned. Just two guys going after each other. We don’t need to see another debate at this point. There’s plenty of information already out there and if you don’t know who to vote for you’re clueless and probably shouldn’t vote and if you already have a candidate another debate won’t change that.

Posted by: bza at October 17, 2012 12:38 AM
Comment #354669

Quit it. Stop while you’re still behind and not falling off the cliff in back of being behind.

Please proceed. Check the transcript. The moderator confirms what he called it, on day one. The President says, Ms. Crowley, can you say that a little louder.

Binders of Women. You’ll get that job back when they hire so many people they have to hire even you.

So on and so forth.

And really, what was different about his five point plan? Wasn’t the Right’s answer to the energy problem “drill baby drill?” Original. Tax cuts? Oh, no Republican candidate has ever done that before! Deregulation? Shocker. Did he mention he stole some of the jobs he talked about in that study from an assessment of what Obama’s policies would do in the next eight years?

This was a debacle for Romney, and that’s only going to get more clear as time goes on.

Please Proceed. Check the transcript. Romney attempted to fact check the President and got smacked on his own facts by the President AND the moderator, who both have the video to back them up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2012 12:45 AM
Comment #354670

I dunno. Maybe I’ll vote for Romney after all. If I could be assured of daily statements threatening Big Bird, or demanding binders full of women, it might just be worth it.

Posted by: phx8 at October 17, 2012 12:50 AM
Comment #354671

And wouldn’t you know it, the Binder full of Women was already there when he got there.

Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006. (It then began rapidly rising when Deval Patrick took office.) Third, note that in Romney’s story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn’t know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2012 1:14 AM
Comment #354674


Re drilling - this must be the ultimate irony. ALL the drilling going on today was planned permitted under Bush. Obama opposed oil and gas exploration. He just was not very competent in his opposition so it went on. Now he takes credit for letting it happen.

I wrote about gas on several occasions on these pages. I love the idea and I think it is the true stimulus. Few of my liberal friends shared my enthusiasm and the reflected the Obama mindset.

The truth is this. Both Romney and Obama want “green” energy as well as gas and oil. But they are not the same in what they want. Obama thinks that spending big government money on green energy is the way to go. This did not work and will work as fast as he thinks.

What will save the U.S. in the near term is natural gas. This has allowed us drastically to cut green house emissions and will make us prosperous in the next ten years. Neither Obama nor Romney caused this. But if you asked them before, Obama would have told you it was a bad idea; Romney would have supported.

Obama did well. He came our fighting and this time actually did his homework. We’ll see how well he does in the election.

I just think we don’t have to settle for the kind of results we have had for the last four years. We can do better than Obama.

Posted by: C&J at October 17, 2012 6:26 AM
Comment #354675

Republicans can not admit errors or failures. Whenever they are caught lying they just deny it. That has always been their “show no weakness ” strategy. At least most democrats can admit when they loss a debate. Republicans only have 2 outcomes to a debate. Romney wins or it’s a draw. The fact that you posted this blog at 10:24 before the dabate even finished says it all.

Posted by: Paul at October 17, 2012 7:45 AM
Comment #354676
We can do better than Obama.

But the choice is Romney C&J, so no we can’t do better than Obama this time around. Romney the flip flopping fool and Ryan the Ayn Rand disciple. Conservatives had their chance and they blew it. The fact is a Romney victory will leave a bad taste in conservative’s mouth the next morning.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 17, 2012 7:49 AM
Comment #354678


“ALL the drilling going on today was planned permitted under Bush.”

I agree with the fact check with pretty much agrees with you. The point is that production is mainly down because of Deepwater and it has flucuated up and down even under President Bush. Romney is misleading to make Obama look like he’s anti-fossil fuels. Obama has always been for smart energy. Not all of his investments have paid off but his commitment to renewable energy can’t be questioned at this point.

“I just think we don’t have to settle for the kind of results we have had for the last four years. We can do better than Obama.”

That presumes the last four years weren’t largely set in motion by the previous four years and that the next will somehow just be the same. It won’t. Romney is calling for changes that will create 12 million jobs when CBO is already projecting almost that many. We need a short term debt deal and then a longer term deal next year that will keep us on track. I know you think a deal will be more likely under Romney and that may not be true since if Obama wins the primary mission of the GOP Congress will have failed and they’ll have no excuses but to work with Obama.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 8:02 AM
Comment #354679

Last night AD was defending Obama and the hack Candy Crowley on the Libya terrorist zinger. Tell me, does AD still defend Obama, now that Crowley has come out admitting she was wrong?

But here is the real story of how America feels:

The Luntz focus groups of Obama voters, show the shift to Romney.

Posted by: Frank at October 17, 2012 8:02 AM
Comment #354680

KAP: “What more evidence do you need to say this was a planned attack that had nothing to do with a cheap video.”

Again, this still had to do with the video. It was planned and the terrorists said it was about the video. It just wasn’t spontaneous, related to protests as they first thought. Obama didn’t use the exact right words for you in the Rose Garden so I’m not surprised you don’t find the exact right words from anyone else for weeks. This is political.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 8:10 AM
Comment #354681

1) No, he didn’t specifically mention the attack as an act of terror, he just threw out that phrase randomly, without any connection to an attack by religious militants who just killed his ambassador (Sarcasm Mode off)

If the moderator does remember the President’s words, it would be a deliberate help to the side of the person in the wrong not to speak up and say the President’s right. Moreover, it would be dishonest. It’s not Candy Crowley’s fault that Mitt Romney failed to research a basic line of attack, of which there was much footage available.

2) So your next argument is that the woman who you called a hack then turned around and helped the talking point somewhat? Hmm. I wonder how she’s both a hack and a helper at the same time.

Oh, and by the way, one reason that second point didn’t land with the smack the other did is this: It is one thing to take some time to figure out the totality of what happened. That’s called investigation. But I don’t think you could say Obama didn’t consider this a deliberate attack from day one. The question, which Obama wanted to get right in all the chaos, was the question of what actually happened there.

3) The Luntz focus group. Really, who do you think Luntz is? All those nice little phrases like “Death Tax”. and “Government Takeover of Healthcare” are his. Do you really think that a man who could actually redefine Orwellian in a positive sense would come on television with a focus group that wasn’t tilted towards Romney?

It’s no replacement for scientific polling at all.

You know, it doesn’t serve your interests to go into denial about whether you lost. So, please, continue to be this naive. Then Obama and Biden will have three victories to Romney’s one.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2012 8:24 AM
Comment #354682

KAP: “Adam he mentions acts of terror, but never says terror attack again for over 2 weeks.”

* Obama called it an act of terror the morning after in the Rose Garden the day after.

* Obama called it an act of terror 13th in Colorado two days after.

* Obama called it an act of terror 13th in Las Vegas two days after, same day as Colorado.

* Carney called it a terrorist attack on the 20th, nine days after.

This is political.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 8:43 AM
Comment #354683

What I am seeing is the liberal parsing of words once again. Remember, “it depends what the definition of is-is”.

You can parse the words all you want, because you are Obama worshippers, but the American people have no use for word games and the polls will show it.

Stephen, once again you attack the source and not the substance. Who cares if it was Luntz and who cares what his political views are; the point is, he was in Nevada talking to a group of people, of which the majority had voted for Obama, but were now in support of Romney.

AD, you can spin the video all you want; the leader of Libya said it wasn’t about the video, the state dept said it wasn’t about the video, and the WH finally admitted it wasn’t about a video; but here you are, still peddling the video. Tell me AD, did you see the video, did any liberal on WB see the video, or did anyone anywhere see the video?

The video had nothing to do with the murders in Libya.

Obama failed to answer for his policies, he failed to give us anything except 4 more years of the same thing, and his sole purpose was to call Romney a liar. Which played great with the socialist left; but won’t mean crap to the Americans.

Let me say once again; this election is going to be a complete blowout for Romney. It’s going to be another Reagan over the peanut man and it wouldn’t surprise me to see Romney with 300+ electorial votes. There is going to be a very strong message sent in 3 weeks and the left is not going to like it.

Posted by: Frank at October 17, 2012 9:31 AM
Comment #354684

I’ll tell you what Stephen, instead of making your dumbass statement about the Luntz focus group, because it’s right wing; why don’t we look at MSNBC’s left win focus group, which still leans to Romney:

Posted by: Frank at October 17, 2012 9:39 AM
Comment #354686

Kind of interesting that, the morning after the debate, an issue that was barely noticed might be the most significant one in terms of the way people actually vote.

Single parents are pissed at Romney’s over his comments about their families during the debate. Whether you agree or disagree with Romney, his observations were tone deaf, and NOT welcome by single parents.

Posted by: phx8 at October 17, 2012 10:47 AM
Comment #354687


Which statements?

One howler TPM reminded me of this morning was when Romney said something about how knows about how tough it is to start a small business. I laughed out loud when he said that. The plight of the multimillionaire small business creator, let me tell you.

That’s right up there with that time Romney said he knows how the guy in the audience feels because he’s unemployed too. Wow. Romney really is the self-made man after all right? He built that…

C&J and others would have us believe Romney is not that guy. The vision of Romney as an out of touch super rich white guy is just a fabrication of the Obama campaign. Even Ryan compared the 47% comment to a Biden gaffe.

Which reminds me. Obama bringing up the 47% comment finally with no way for Romney to respond probably helped the Romney team stimulate the antacid sector of our economy. They’re already creating jobs and they aren’t even in office yet.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 11:16 AM
Comment #354688

“Guns don’t kill people. Single mothers kill people.”

“Obama: “I passed a law allowing women to get equal pay.” Romney: “I hired women once.”

There’s a whole list of funny tweets from the debate, including several about “binders full of women,”, on cnn. I’m sure they’re all over the internet.

Posted by: phx8 at October 17, 2012 11:23 AM
Comment #354689

Oh, right. I didn’t catch that context other than the pivot to Fast and Furious as if Fast and Furious isn’t a model of the same gun walking programs exercised under President Bush which Romney would probably have done as well had Fast and Furious not been politicized by the right as usual.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 11:50 AM
Comment #354690

It had nothing to do with a CHEAP VIDEO Adam. It was planned months before. All what happened prior to the attack should have given someone a clue to what was going on and that something was going to happen. But when you have a president who dosen’t go to his briefings as he should how is he to know whats going on. I guess things like the View, Letterman, Beyonce and others are more important. So you Stephen and the rest of the liberals can defend him all you want but the people are seeing the real Obama now.

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2012 12:42 PM
Comment #354691

By the way Fast and Furious is another of those I don’t know moments.

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2012 12:44 PM
Comment #354693

KAP: “It had nothing to do with a CHEAP VIDEO Adam. It was planned months before.”

We won’t know for sure until more information is made public but here is what we do know:

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

The option is not between a terrorist attack and an attack motivated by the video. It was a premeditated terrorist attack in retaliation for the video. Where do you get the idea that it had been planned for months? Is NY Times wrong on this?

“But when you have a president who dosen’t go to his briefings…”

You realize that this is a lie the right cooked up to smear the president?

“…the people are seeing the real Obama now.”

How come the “real Obama” is always based on right wing lies and bares little to no resemblance to actual reality?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 12:56 PM
Comment #354695

And what is the substance, pray tell? A handful of disgruntled Obama voters, chosen by a known propagandist for the Right, who typically uses focus groups to find the most viciously effective wording for turning people against Democrats and Liberals…

And you expect me to take that as an indication of who won the debate?

Using a focus group period is just a step away from anecdotal evidence, not very statistically relevant.

You don’t use a focus group to tell you broad opinion, you use it for what Luntz tends to use it for, to pick up on more cognitively complex issues like what words register a stronger, more positive or more negative reaction. You never use a focus group to do a quantitative guess on results, you use randomized polling for that, to take your own bias out of the equation.

And this is a Focus Group it is chosen by Frank Luntz, the Republican propagandist to beat all Republican propagandists, for the sake of a Fox News broadcast. This is a news channel that purposefully employs the perjorative and loaded words that Luntz cobbles together in its newscasts, purposefully does the Republican’s job on spinning events.

You are so gullible. You know that? You never seem to question how ever political fight seems to be one you’re winning, even when you don’t win it. You never seem to question how ever damn decision that doesn’t go your way is judicial activism, and every one that does, even when it breaks with more than a century of jurisprudence isn’t. The world conveniently revolves around Republicans and what a winning bunch of swell people they are, and you never seem to question how you got it so good…

…especially since results haven’t panned out like you were expecting. If we went by FOXNews accounts, McCain would have been President, Obama would be trailing Mitt Romney badly in every battleground state, Obamacare would have been declared unconstitutional, and so on and so forth.

It’s not helpful to have people pumping such sunshine up your butt. Obama, if he had simply withdrawn himself within his shell and kept telling himself he won the last debate, wouldn’t have prepared himself for this one, and knocked so many hits out of the park, As the audience reaction of the undecideds tells you. Obama, instead of denying his mistakes, acknowledged them, and thereby avoided repeating them. You didn’t see Obama looking down at his feet, or looking down in the dumps. You didn’t see him looking tired, like he wanted to be somewhere else.

Will Romney do the same? I’m not so certain. Instant reaction will evolve according to what sticks in people’s memory, and what sticks in many people’s memory is the Rose Garden Fact check, the way Obama obviously let Romney walk into the factual trap, and then chopped down on him with an irrefutable fact that even the moderate had to acknowledge.

But Romney’s people are going to tell him that he held his own. They’ll justify the “binder of women” comment, just like they justify so many of Romney’s other bad habits.

Meanwhile, you won’t find many Democrats who thought the President lost. My friends on the Daily Kos left are not nervous or demoralized. A website poll of who they thought won was so lopsided at the time I registered my reaction that I made a literal 99% joke about it. Guess where Romney was. It’s still 95% to 3% against Romney.

This isn’t simply about undecideds or independents which Obama has won back, this is also about Democrats who are right now justifiably proud of their party leader’s performance, about Liberals who no longer have their feet on the ledge, feeling sorry for themselves.

Meanwhile, Obama managed to put in the final impression, managed to stick that 47% comment to Romney in a way that left it the last thought of the night, and Romney practically handed it to him by obliquely referencing it.

Don’t think we’re not taking Romney seriously at this point. But we can rest a little more peacefully now that the President has come back and given better than he got.

Anything less than putting Obama permanently in check was not a victory for Romney.

A final thought has occured to me: why does it seem like the Republican Party these days is a party in a constant state of damage control?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2012 1:50 PM
Comment #354696

Adam, There was a breach of the wall surrounding the consulate before anyone knew of the Video, was the attack of the British ambassador because of the Video to? It sure is a coinsidence that the attack was planned for 9/11. Could it be it was in retalliation for Bin Ladin and 9/11 is simbolic? You are just like the rest of the liberals blameing right wing smears for Obama’s gross incompetence.

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2012 2:07 PM
Comment #354698

What a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. The Libya attack happened because Obama didnt go to briefings? This from supporters of the party that got a memo saying Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US months before Sept. 11th and instead of doing something about it Bush went on vacation. To my earlier point, when republicans are worried they have a weakness somewhere they accuse the other party of exactly that weakness. It’s pretty sad, of course democrats at the time having some class didnt turn it into a politcal football but when you’re Mitt Romney nothing is off limits or too false to become a daily talking point.

Posted by: Paul at October 17, 2012 2:48 PM
Comment #354699

KAP: “Adam, There was a breach of the wall surrounding the consulate before anyone knew of the Video…”

Which breach are you speaking of and when did it happen? There’s a lot that went on in a short time span and a lot about these events I still don’t understand.

“It sure is a coincidence that the attack was planned for 9/11.”

That is speculation. All that I’ve seen indicates the terrorists themselves claimed it was related to the video and did not mention 9/11. That does not mean 9/11 wasn’t also a factor. It might have been but I’m not sure evidence for that has been reported.

“You are just like the rest of the liberals blameing right wing smears for Obama’s gross incompetence.”

I’m just pointing out that your view of the attack does not line up with the evidence we have so far. I’m also reminding you that the video being a basis for the attack does not mean it was not pre-planned or a terrorist attack.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 3:38 PM
Comment #354702

Man, these right-wingers just can’t squeal loud enough! And the idea that you can’t have it multiple ways doesn’t set well with you, either. You are saddled with a less-than-adequate candidate and there isn’t anything you can do about it, but to just grin and bear it……and own it.
I’m kind of surprised that Annie didn’t escape her handlers and come rushing onto the stage, shouting at the audience to “stop it…just stop it”.

Posted by: jane doe at October 17, 2012 4:13 PM
Comment #354704

Adam, here is a list of dates prior to 9/11, Apr.6,11,25,26,27 May,1,22, June 6, 2012 a hole was blowen in the security perimeter of the Bengazi consulate wall, June 10, and late June. I googled Libya, prior attacks before 9/11/2012. Because of a Video, I think NOT.

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2012 4:25 PM
Comment #354705


So because other groups or even this same group had motive to attack the consulate in the past that means the motivation for this particular attack on this day could not have been the current events in the region driven by protests against the video? I’m not really understanding your position here.

You’re so certain it wasn’t the video that you’re ignoring reports that it was. I’m not certain it was the video and that reports on this won’t find other motives, but I know the NY Times and Reuters are both standing by statements during the attack that link it as a response to the video. Did you read the NY Times article?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 4:44 PM
Comment #354708

All the arguing about what the president knew, and when, about the Libyan murders is really missing the point.

For weeks we have heard the president, and members of his administration, deny that it was a terrorist attack. Now, the SecState has confirmed what we all know was indeed just that.

We fail to consider that most voters do not involve themselves in the political minutia that we do here on WatchBlog.

Regardless of what obama may claim about the murders, voters have already decided after watching events unfold over the past month that it was a terrorist attack. And, that obama has not been in front of it; but rather trailing behind the story and reacting.

His public statements regarding the Libyan murders leave no doubt that this man was unable, or even worse, unwilling to define and explain what happened. This failure gives voters the perception of obama either being evasive and uninformed, or worse…politically motivated about a serious breech of our nation’s security.

My fear, and that of many other Americans, is that the obama administration can not protect our interests overseas and wonder about our own security here at home. If our ambassador is subject to murder by terrorists, is anyone of us safe?

No amount of parsing words will erase what the voters have already heard and seen…that bell can not be unrung.

Last nights debate has reinforced my belief that Mr. Romney will be our next president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2012 5:02 PM
Comment #354710

Royal Flush: “For weeks we have heard the president, and members of his administration, deny that it was a terrorist attack. Now, the SecState has confirmed what we all know was indeed just that.”

Please outline the cases where they denied it was a terrorist attack. And I don’t mean that they refused to label it one way or another. I think perhaps the statements by Rice maybe qualify? Do you have others?

“Last nights debate has reinforced my belief that Mr. Romney will be our next president.”

And it reinforced my belief that he will lose so I guess we cancel each other out.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 5:11 PM
Comment #354711

Nobody denied that it was a terrorist attack, or at least a deliberate militia attack. The question was whether there was an accompanying protest, or whether the attack was the whole affair.

It’s this bit of false controversy Republicans have seized on, because they can’t blame the President for there not being the proper security without acknowledging they cut the budget, at least if they don’t want people bringing that up while they’re trying to look like they’re coming to the rescue of American foreign policy.

Republicans are making promises like a man with a stolen credit card making purchases, and not all of their promises can be fulfilled together.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2012 5:36 PM
Comment #354712

Hahaha! Naturally people on the right are saying that Romney won! They’re just as dishonest as Mitt Romney is himself!

Speaking of which:
At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 31 Myths In 41 Minutes

The truth is, Mitt Romney lost the debate this time around. Obama definitely beat him on the majority of issues, and Romney stumbled several times.

Btw, once again Romney chose to act rude and disrespectfully towards the moderator (and the president) — just as he did during the first debate.
That kind of rudeness and disrespect is not considered presidential behavior by many if not most Americans, yet Mitt can’t help but keep reinforcing that impression through his behavior. I think it’s just part of who he is: the rich, elitist CEO type who thinks his opinions are the only ones that actually matter.
Don’t assume people aren’t taking note of this — whether consciously or not.

Crowley: “If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.”
LOL! Yes, sit down and attempt to shut up for two seconds!

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2012 5:45 PM
Comment #354713

Stephen Daugherty:

Last night we witnessed the unraveling not of Obama’s foreign policy, but of the Romney attacks on Obama’s foreign policy.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 5:47 PM
Comment #354714

Adam, We have told you time and again, The View, Letterman, Ambassador Rice, Jay Carney, Obama at the U.N. and Hillary. All because he gives a vague assertiion that this was an act of terror at the Rose Garden speech does not get him off the hook. He has been trying to cover his own A** for about a month.

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2012 5:50 PM
Comment #354716

“This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims,” White House press secretary Jay Carney insisted Friday. And there’s no proof the Benghazi attack was “pre-planned.”

There is no evidence, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice claimed, the attacks were “pre-planned.” The catalyst, she said, was the trailer for a movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” produced in the United States.

On September 20, Obama Contradicted His Administration When He Said We Still Did Not Know If Terrorists Had Attacked The Benghazi Compound, Claiming, “What We Do Know Is That The Natural Protests That Arose Because Of The Outrage Over The Video Were Used As An Excuse By Extremists.”

On September 24, Obama Appeared On The View And Again Refused To Call The Attack Terrorism, Only Saying That The Attack “Wasn’t Just A Mob Action.” “President Barack Obama said Monday that the Sept. 11 attack that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans ‘wasn’t just a mob action,’ but he stopped short of explicitly labeling the assault as an act of terrorism. Obama’s comments came as he taped an interview with ‘The View’ during a brief trip to New York to address the annual United National General Assembly. He had been asked whether the attack on the U.S. Consulate compound in the city of Benghazi was a terrorist act.”

Sept. 13: White House spokesman Jay Carney says “the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”

Sept. 20, Obama at a town hall meeting says: “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama doesn’t mention terrorism but makes repeated references to the video. Asked about Clinton’s statement on ABC’s “The View” show, the president skirts the issue by saying: “We’re still doing an investigation,” blames “extremist militias.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2012 6:14 PM
Comment #354717

Unfortunately, fewer viewers saw that last debate.

The last debate drew 67.2 million viewers. Yesterday’s debate only drew a paltry 65.6 million people.

I can has a sad now. ;-)

But seriously, the interest in this debate was about as high as the previous one, so I expect that a great deal of Obama’s problems in the polls will at least ease.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2012 6:26 PM
Comment #354718

I expect that a great deal of Obama’s problems in the polls will at least ease.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2012

Really? Can you tell us what new policies obama outlined last night that might attract voters back to his side? Will voters come rushing back to vote for obama simply because he can walk…and talk…at the same time?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2012 6:34 PM
Comment #354719

Mr. Daugherty appears to believe that obama’s slippage in the polls came from his base and Mitt’s increase in his poll standings came from his base. I don’t believe that for a moment.

It is the undecided and independent voters who are causing poll numbers to rise and fall. Please tell me Mr. Daugherty, what was it about obama, his record and policies, that was revealed last night that these voters didn’t already know?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2012 6:48 PM
Comment #354720

Royal Flush:

I don’t see a single item in your list other than with Rice where Obama or his administration denies it being a terrorist attack. Refusal to label it one way or another isn’t a denial. It’s clear that after a few initial misconceptions such as that it was part of the protest, that the administration stopped speaking about it until more was know. Let me go through your list though:

Carney on the 13th said it was believed to be a response to the video and it still is believed to be to this day. Does that imply it wasn’t a terrorist attack? No. Carney refused to label it pre-planned because they didn’t know if it was and they had no evidence ahead of time that an attack might occur.

Rice: Her statements do go contrary to the administration but I said that already.

Obama on the 20th: No, he did not contradict his administration and he did not say it wasn’t a terrorist attack. He was asked if he had information that Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests and he said they didn’t know, it was being investigated, and that he did know the protests were because of the video.

Obama at the UN: He did not say it wasn’t a terrorist attack so which of his statements contradict that?

Obama on the View: Same as at the UN. He makes no contradictory statement. He just simply doesn’t label it terrorism or anything contrary.

There is so much right wing politicization of this wrapped around the truth that it’s hard to get to anymore but it should become clear to anyone who digs into this that the administration has been wrong about only one of their assumptions so far: That this attack was carried out by protesters similar to in Egypt.

We know it was not protesters. It was a militia group. We don’t know yet how far ahead it was planned. We know that interviews of the militants involved in the attack said they were attacking over the video and made no mention of 9/11 being a motive.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 6:54 PM
Comment #354721

Royal Flush: “Mr. Daugherty appears to believe that obama’s slippage in the polls came from his base and Mitt’s increase in his poll standings came from his base. I don’t believe that for a moment.”

It was a little of both. The Biden victory helped Obama reclaim most of his disenchanted base which helped him climb almost 1% in the polls and the victory last night will hopefully put Obama back over the top with the independent voters and especially the women voters who shifted to Mitt since the first debate.

I know you don’t feel swayed by the debate but it wasn’t for us other than to love or hate. Obama doesn’t need to outline new policies, he needs to convince Americans that the lies Romney have told about his policies are just that: lies. We’ll see. I have a good feeling about it, but I’ve been wrong a lot when it comes to polls.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 7:06 PM
Comment #354723

“Will voters come rushing back to vote for obama simply because he can walk…and talk…at the same time?”

No, but they will because he can walk, talk (mock Donald Trump),and order Osama Bin Laden to be killed at the same time.

Posted by: t at October 17, 2012 7:16 PM
Comment #354724

Adam, I understand and appreciate your parsing for obama over Libya. You and I understand that but I don’t believe the average voter does. A full month following the murders the voting public has a sense that the administration was covering up for political reasons.

They know that Americans died at the hands of terrorists. They know that the obama administration was responsible for security. And, unfortunately for obama, they have linked the two together and have come to the conclusion that we were not properly prepared to prevent it from happening.

It brings on new fears about our security into the minds of the voters. Rational or not, this is a game changer.

No amount of explanation by the administration is going to change that perception before the election. Just as markets are moved by perception, not reality, so are elections.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2012 7:23 PM
Comment #354725

No, but they will because he can walk, talk (mock Donald Trump),and order Osama Bin Laden to be killed at the same time.
Posted by: t at October 17, 2012

A voter would have to have just arrived on the planet to not already know this…don’t you think?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2012 7:26 PM
Comment #354726

Royal Flush: “A full month following the murders the voting public has a sense that the administration was covering up for political reasons.”

Right wing talking heads said so and they have a huge platform for misinformation in America. It’s no doubt that a good chunk of the public is not just uninformed but straight up misinformed thanks to your side. The right will spin anything, say anything, do anything to destroy Obama. This doesn’t worry you at all I suspect.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 7:30 PM
Comment #354727

Sorry Adam…I just read it as I see it. Please don’t play the “holier than thou” card, it’s unbecoming for someone as knowledgeable as you to cast any aspersions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2012 7:37 PM
Comment #354728

Obama is going to loose and the left is going to say “what just happened?” Well that was “unexpected”…

Posted by: Frank at October 17, 2012 7:54 PM
Comment #354729

Royal Flush:

I’m not holier than thou, or holier than much of anything. But I do strive to ground my views in reality whenever possible. When I’m wrong I’m wrong. I don’t straight up lie to further my agenda the way Hannity, Limbaugh and others do.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 8:52 PM
Comment #354730

That the right keeps beating up on Obama over Libya is seriously turning people off. Last week I was at my hair salon talking to two women — one an independent swing voter and the other a moderate Republican (old school) and they were in agreement in their anger that this is happening and that they thought Romney’s statement about Obama being “sympathetic” to Islamic radicals that murdered his ambassador was outrageous. All three of us also agreed that we can’t ever remember another time when a president was so unfairly attacked due to foreigners attacking us. They didn’t realize this initially, but when I told them that the GOP majority House of Representatives had given the Obama administration $270 million less than what they had requested for embassy security they were surprised, and said that maybe Obama is being attacked because in that case it could be said the security was so weak due to THEIR actions.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2012 8:56 PM
Comment #354731


“All three of us also agreed that we can’t ever remember another time when a president was so unfairly attacked due to foreigners attacking us.”

They cannot remember the Bush times? Send her some of your stuff.

Posted by: C&J at October 17, 2012 9:18 PM
Comment #354733

In fact, these women specifically mentioned how no one said a single word about Bush falling down on the job immediately following 9/11 — that our whole nation was one in that moment. Questions about what Bush did or didn’t do started quite a while afterward — especially after the “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” memo came to light. These women were comparing that with Romney saying the awful things he said about Obama only moments after our ambassador had been murdered. Basically they were sad and disgusted that it has become all partisan poison, all the time.
I agreed with them.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2012 9:51 PM
Comment #354735

I was pumping gas tonight and I remebered another of my favorite moments from the debate last night when Obama said this in response to the idiotic argument that gas might have somehow stayed low for Obama had he done things differently:

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


Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 17, 2012 9:55 PM
Comment #354736


Romney should not have criticized the president until he had a reasonable idea of what actually happened. Of course, Obama should not have sent Rice onto the Sunday morning talk shows to repeat “facts” that by then she must have known were untrue.

The attack was certainly NOT Obama’s fault. No president is responsible for these kinds of details. I would not criticize a president for anything like that. Romney was indeed wrong to do so.

But it is equally silly to blame the GOP congress. Really nobody it to blame except the terrorists. We cannot eliminate danger. It is always terrible when the worst happens but sometimes people’s duty takes them to places where they risk the worst.

We should indeed stand together when evil foreigners attack us and kill our people. I would gladly stand with you and others here to defend our country. We, Obama,America, you and me, did nothing to deserve this deadly violence. It was not the first time and will not be the last. The perpetrators are horrible pigs who fail to reach even the minimum levels of civilization. The irony is that they killed a man who had done much personally to help the cause of freedom and justice in the Muslim world. The ostensible changes in policy from Bush to Obama did not change the fundamentals. It goes to show that we cannot placate some people.

Posted by: C&J at October 17, 2012 10:08 PM
Comment #354737

Royal Flush-
You’re always quick to speak for me. The problem is, you usually get your guess dead wrong.

There are a combination of factors that would go into Obama benefiting from a good debate. First, it would energize the base, and relieve them of some of their anxiety of defending the President. Second, it could knock off some fence sitters and moderate republican off into Obama’s basket of voters. Third, and this is what Republicans are trying to prevent with all their insane rhetoric, Obama’s performance can dent the confidence of those on the right.

What actually happens will be an open question, but a positive debate performance last night, by the standards of many, and the flags he planted on some pretty key issues will work in Obama’s favor.

As for your straight question, let me give you a straight answer: not a lot, if you’re like you or me. Maybe a lot to those just tuning in. But that’s not the only concern in a debate. Debates aren’t just about knowledge, they’re about the character of the arguments, and the way candidate feel socially to viewers and audience members.

Heck, you can say they’re about all three operating together.

You talked about focus groups, well I saw a focus group in which two of the peole just thought it was atrocious what Romney did on Libya. You think you have the perception nailed down, I beg to disagree. You are probably deliberately ignoring polls that say that people thought the President came off better, more Presidential.

You trust too much that everybody shares your point of view, and just won’t admit it.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we were united behind Bush. Whatever our misgivings, the vast majority of us wanted him to get Bin Laden, hunt down al-Qaeda, destroy it once and for all, and permanently put the Taliban out of action.

I would argue that the extent to which Bush fell short, got distracted from, and allowed the failure of these goals is the extent to which Bush sabotaged the unity behind him. He made the decision to take us into another war while this one was still going.

Bush basically traded the unity behind the Afghanistan war for the division behind the Iraq War, the deference of a commander in chief responding to an enemy who attacked us for the scrutiny that comes with somebody taking us into a war of choice, especially one that turned out to be justified by a bunch of false and misleading evidence.

He did the political harm to himself. I wouldn’t say the Democrats were bold enough or stupid enough to get in his way on Afghanistan.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2012 10:28 PM
Comment #354751


We were united behind Bush after 9/11. That was a much bigger thing. We were united as Americans.

Later, not much later, there came the “truthers” and the ordinary pinheads who claimed that we saw it coming and did nothing. This is human nature. It is a stupid side of human nature, but human nature.

Re Iraq - Bush acted on intelligence available at the time, the same as the Democratically controlled Senate that approved his actions at the time.

Just as I understand that Obama did not and could not know all the permutations, I understand the same about Bush. We all make decisions in circumstances of uncertainty. And there is much more randomness in the world than we like to admit. Not all poor decisions are made for bad reasons and not all good ones would stand up to scrutiny if closely analyzed.

We all tend to attribute our mistakes and those of people we support as circumstances. We attribute those of people we oppose as the results of stupidity, cupidity or malice. This, BTW, is a place where you need lots of work in your own assessments.

As I said, I think Romney acted poorly in criticizing the president. I also think the president acting poorly by sending Susan Rice out on the Sunday programs to pass a story that was false. I think it is telling that he sent out the political appointee. Maybe no professionals wanted to do it. But I think that the left has very little standing to criticize.

Posted by: C&J at October 18, 2012 7:02 AM
Comment #354758

Iraq divided because it was a war of choice, but not everybody’s choice. Bush was able to steal some consensus by rushing through a whole bunch of poorly supported evidence through a trustworthy spokesman. That’s how he got my support for the Iraq War after initial resistance.

My initial resistance, by the way, concerned the fact we were taking our eye off the ball for the war, the fight everybody wanted, and that was unfinished, with Mullah Omar and Bin Laden still free. If I had known how things would turn out, I would have even more bitterly opposed the Iraq war.

The difference here is one of scale, of the level of the screwup. Our mistakes, our problems lead to four Americans dying. 4459 soldiers have died on account of Bush’s mistakes, both in policy and in the intelligence that led us on this Godforsaken diversion.

America did not end up shouldering the total burden. We ended up being able to convince NATO to finish what we started, with America leading in the background. Libyans fought on the ground themselves, taking the territory, rather than having US soldiers doing that, and depriving them of their sense of ownership.

Despite the violence of some, the Libyans like us a lot better than the Iraqis do. Why? Because they were the ones who decided change was necessary, not just us, and we let them make the decision.

Obama’s intervention was also a thousand times cheaper, costing only a billion and a half, rather than trillions of dollars.

I think you talk about failure in terms of political convenience, rather than in terms of real results here. You’re blind or numb to the failures of your President, and eager to paint this one as a screw-up. People aren’t talking about Libya as a screw-up because we intervened quickly, cheaply, and with generally good results. Folks aren’t hearing about the hundredth or thousandth dead soldier, or about hundred billion dollar war budgets.

Lacking that kind of substance to complain about a foreign policy that has claimed greater successes, at least the substance you’d be inclined to complain about, you instead blow up one particular attack into a massive scandal, and parasitically employ it to tarnish the reputation of the administration that did what your administration could not.

In short, we have a lot of room to criticize, and you, very little, not until you confront the scale of the failures your side inflicted on our nation, and realize how mistaken you truly were.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2012 11:29 AM
Comment #354767

C&J wrote about the murders in Libya…”We cannot eliminate danger.”

No, we can’t. But, we certainly can, and should, prepare for it in a responsible way. The danger was clearly known by the Sec/state and should have been known by the president.

In fact, this lack of preparedness for danger is what has many Americans worried. If the murders in Libya are a demonstration of the preparedness of this administration, we conclude, who is protecting us here on our own soil?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 18, 2012 3:43 PM
Comment #354781


You are more likely to see “us & them” in these things. I am more likely to see Americans.

You see foreign policy success and failure in partisan terms. I understand that if Obama fails overseas, so do I. They same was true of Bush and you.

I don’t think you understood what I wrote or you ignored it. I did not criticize Obama overseas. In fact I defended him and criticized Romney.

Please do not attribute to me your partisan failings. I am a patriot when it comes to these things. You might learn a little from that.

Posted by: C&J at October 18, 2012 6:20 PM
Comment #354799
I am a patriot when it comes to these things. You might learn a little from that.

C&J Do patriots vote for those that use national security issues for partisan gain like Romney has done with the Libya embassy issue? Lets face it this strawman conservatives have constructed for political gain comes at the expense of the country. Dems and liberals backed GWB after 9/11, as Stephen has pointed out. Conservatives candidates for president immediately decided to use terrorist attacks for political gain. Patriots do not do that, nor do they vote for those that do.

Small minded conservatives on WB have went so far as to claim parsing or words, because Obama used appropriate language not hysterics to communicate after the attack. What a sick pathetic joke these people are. Real Patriots would denounce this type of political BS not promote it, IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 18, 2012 10:08 PM
Comment #354800


I criticized Romney for his comments in ways you guys would never do/have never done for one of yours. I am not, however, going to confess all his sins. I believe that Romney, like all people, makes mistakes and does some things wrong. I also believe that he is a lot better than Obama and will do a better job as president.

I also did not parse Obama’s words. I correctly pointed out the PR offense that the Obama folks mounted on the Sunday programs. I have no idea why they did that. It seems to me that if you are going to do something like that, you should choose things that will not soon and decisively be proven wrong.

But it is you guys who are picking the fight with me by projecting your own lack of virtue onto me. I supported my president against foreign enemies. I don’t fall into your category and never will in this respect.

Posted by: C&J at October 18, 2012 10:15 PM
Comment #354869

Despite the side steeping C&J the facts remain. Romney used the attack on Americans in Libya for political gain, revealing a tremendous lack of patriotism. Why would a real patriot vote for someone who would do such a thing?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 20, 2012 8:39 AM
Comment #355611

Under his influence, I read widely, learnt to love opera and classical music but also read all his old left-wing book club good cheap north face denali hot sale series that made quite an impression on me! However after the war the activities of the Unions and many of the policies of the Labour government disgusted him so we’ve been arguing ever since! He always encouraged me to go to university so that I have never felt trapped in any situation, knowing I could work my way out of it. Under his influence, I read widely, learnt to love opera and classical music but also read all his old left-wing book club series that made quite an impression the best quality with north face discount good for use on me! However after the war the activities of the Unions and many of the policies of the Labour government disgusted him so we’ve been arguing ever since! He always encouraged me to go to university so that I have never felt trapped in any situation, knowing I could work my way out of it.

Posted by: cheap north face denali at October 29, 2012 2:45 AM
Comment #357371

I admire you very much, but I am sorry I have to copy your words that I love very much.

Posted by: Burberry Outlet at November 19, 2012 2:32 AM
Post a comment