The question came towards the end of last night's debate, and Republicans were no doubt thrilled. After an event featuring questions Democrats enjoyed -- equal pay for women, outsourcing, Bush comparisons -- an undecided voter finally brought up an issue the right has been desperate to talk about: the attack in Benghazi that left four Americans dead.
But after weeks of teeing this up as a devastating issue for President Obama, Mitt Romney blew it. It was, as Rachel noted last night, a "political disaster" for the Republican.
As the moment unfolded live, it was obvious Romney thought he'd finally found a brutal new criticism. The Republican began by accusing the president on Sept. 12 of flying "to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser" -- that wasn't true; there was no such fundraiser -- instead of addressing the attack. Obama responded, "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror."
Romney hadn't done his homework, and didn't realize that the president was telling the truth. He thought he'd tripped Obama up, but even moderator Candy Crowley felt compelled to fact-check Romney in real time: "He did call it an 'act of terror.'"
The president added, "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" The moment that Romney expected to be triumphant had backfired -- and the crowd of undecided voters ended up applauding Obama.
"[T]he Romney camp laid the trap," Josh Marshall noted. "And tonight Mitt walked right into it."
The New York Times' Andrew Rosenthal compared it to another major foreign-policy debate failure.
When Gerald Ford denied in 1976 that there was any "Soviet domination" of Eastern Europe, he cemented the impression that he was out of touch with pretty much everything. Tonight, Mitt Romney may have had a similar moment, during a back-and-forth about the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. Mr. Romney clearly thought he had a big opening and he moved in for the kill when Mr. Obama said he had called the attack a terrorist act the very next day, in a Rose Garden speech. [...]
Whoever coached Mr. Romney on that question did the candidate no favors.... The exchange left voters in the uncomfortable position of assuming that Mr. Romney either believes his own propaganda or doesn't care whether what he says is true, which fits into the narrative that he's willing to twist the truth for political gain.
One other thought: last night featured plenty of emotional highs and lows, but Romney's criticism of Benghazi on political grounds seemed to offend the president on a personal level. Take a look at Obama's face during his response:
Romney tried to exploit the deaths of Americans for partisan gain the night of Sept. 11, and then he tried to do it again in last night's debate. The president, displaying more passion than we're accustomed to seeing, was determined to make the Republican pay a price for this, and he did. Romney ended up looking small, with even less credibility on foreign policy than he did before.
Leave a Comment:
November 6th, hurry up!
There's a ton of actual work to be done on fiscal cliff issues and precious time left to do it.
Not until we get the polls to swing the other way!
Polls are like pre-season Super Bowl picks. Don't worry so much.
The polls can stay any old way they want, as long as Barack Obama wins on Nov. 6th!
Don't worry about November 6th, worry about November 7th
On the Lybia issue someone fabricated a protest and video story which has been proved not to be based in fact. I would like to know who that someone is.
Also someone in this administration is listening to someone that fabricates stories and takes it as fact instead of collecting their own hard facts. I would like to know who that is.
Back to the early rejecting of enhanced security requests for this Embassy I wonder was that decision based on fact or what someone else told them?
It's hard to believe and really disturbing to think a government of our capabilities relies on story fabricators (Like Bush and the Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction story fabrication) instead of cold hard facts.
hmmm, security requests were for Tripoli, NOT the Bengazi compound.
And of course, the petulant trolls appear.
Romney didn't lose the debate. It was rigged as usual, and yet he showed well.
Being a current Resident of Las Vegas I can confirm President Obama was here on September 12 for a campaign event due to the local news and traffic tie ups.
Was it a fundraiser? I don't know, but I doubt either candidate makes a campaign long distance trip like this without collecting a few checks.
The trolls are p!ssed because their boy RobMe was shown up as the worthless blood-sucking parasite he is.
See, Shooter and those like him are "why WE can't have nice things". Sulking and being a spoiled sport because your man had his a$$ handed to him for the lies he's been spouting for the last 18 months - that's not a librul setup, nor did he "show well"! What is he Rafalca at the Olympics?
Robme was rude, petulant, churlish, and overall a real horse's behind - that's not Presidential; if I were his mother I would've smacked him good, washed his mouth with soap for lying and made him kneel in the corner on uncooked rice!
"Robme was rude, petulant, churlish, and overall a real horse's behind"
Unfortunately, those are qualities that are admired on the right.
I wonder what Ann Romney and her son are going to say about who was the petulant child upset in the sandbox.
To paraphrase Shakespeare Romney was hoisted on his own petard.
Goddamn Zora, I don't approve of Romney either, but you're a horrible parent. You spent time here thinking up ways to physically abuse and torture a hypothetical child of yours. Hopefully any children of yours are entirely theoretical.
A President Romney would be ruinous to our beloved nation! -Kevo
Actually, a Romney victory will turn the United States into the Corporate Fiefs of America. We would be owned and operated by the CEOs and THE 500 Families, and the rest of us, would be subservient to them just as the Serfs were subservient to the Lords of the Corporations. It would begin a new Dark Age in the history of man.
Well...maybe the history of American man. It would take more than a Romney to darken Canada's absurd , rock solid optimism. We Rock!
On another story line Jeanne Stewart posted this: This video is shocking pass it around! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTwqkl8BqSc
It is a documentary on the Koch Brothers and it is a look into their Political strings.
That look on Romney's face the moment he was fact checked - by an uppity woman! - is priceless.
To be precise, women are ANGRY. Only Obama can be uppity.
I expect Romney's foreign policy advisor to come out of the Dem closet sometime soon.
I absolutely cannot wait for the Foreign Policy presidential debate on Monday, October 22 in Boca Raton, Florida!!
C'mon, Romney doesn't actually believe his own rhetoric! That would be nuts. Other than God and gold, the only thing Romney believes is that he deserves to be President.
Of course, people who approach service and leadership with an entitlement mentality are uniquely unqualified to excel at it. (See George W. Bush.)
I'm not so sure the God you and I believe in is the same one Romney believes in. If I remember correctly, Jesus Christ said it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man passing into the Kingdom of God. But he is a greedy dawg, and that is a deadly sin in anyone's bible.
Also lying seems to be a big issue. That is also frowned upon in most churches. And then there is the pesky vulture capitalism--making his money at the direct expense of thousands and thousands of hard-working Americans. His core belief system seems to be very skewed insofar as being a man of faith, IMHO.
"Romney believes is that he deserves to be
President." KING.Romney would become the Plutocrat in Chief....
you forgot to mention he also believes magic undergarments will protect you from Satan
My sister the Mormom, ranted this morning on facebook about our President. It was plain disgusting. These people are so brainwashed. I let her have it. She acted as if she was in Lybia and knew the truth. I called her on that and of course the 47%, of which we are both. Unbelievable how dense these Mormons are.
I have to step in here and defend my Mormon friends. My Mormon friends are thoughtful, intelligent, kind, socially aware, and politically active people. They are both far leaning liberal and moderate conservatives. None of them support Romney. It's a small-minded assumption that because an individual is of a particular faith, they agree with all others of the same faith on all issues. I am a Christian and I do not agree with Pat Robertson. In fact, I cringe at the fact that he and many others consider him and his ilk Christian. If Romney were Muslim or Hindu no liberal would be mocking his beliefs. Magic underwear? Having an Elephant as a God? Believing a man was a son of a God? All of these portions of these faiths sound ridiculous if you're not of that faith or if you are trying to make rational sense of them. Faith is not rational. That does not mean it is not relevant.
well said. (and I'm an Atheist)
Obama has no energy knowledge OR policy. The price of gas is proof. He has no knowledge of oil leases etc. on his national land. He either just makes stuff up or out and out lies about leases, drilling etc on public lands.
REALLY? You are seriously deluded. 'The price of gas'? Do YOU follow policy? Guess not from this comment. And another thing...WTF is this about public and private lands and drilling? Is public land oil BETTER? Are we IN THIS together?
The price of gas peaked higher under Bush ($4.31) than it did under Obama. The only reason it was low when Obama took office was the country had fallen into George Bush's Great Recession.
The price of gas is NOT proof, jes33. There is not, nor will there be a "special" gas price for the United States. We can drill here, we can refine here, but it still goes on the world market, at the world price. Link
It's you that appears to lack energy knowledge. And you conveniently forget the Big Oil greed factor we're all dealing with as well.
Serious question here: I honestly don't understand why free market people seem to assume that the President of the United States can single-handedly control the price of oil and gasoline. Don't all the private companies gouging people at the pumps while also taking government subsidies have ANY say in the matter? Do you guys truly want to go communistic by handing control over basic commodities to the government? I just don't get this argument at all.
" I honestly don't understand why free market people seem to assume that the President of the United States can single-handedly control the price of oil and gasoline."
Unless they are psychotic, they know that the President can't do that. However they obviously think it is a politically useful lie, so they continue to pretend that the President can do it.
Umm actually you are simply showing your own lack of knowledge about your own government. The President isn't a dictator and if you actually read the Constitution you would see that the House of Representatives is the most powerful arm of the Government, or at least it is suppose to be.
Exactly how is the President suppose to affect the price of gas or any product in this country? What law does he have that gives him the right to swoop in and make those sort of changes? Only one, and that is the EPA and their power to regulate automobile mileage. About a year ago the EPA put into effect a regulation that car fleets average 54mpg by 2025. Well the Republicans screamed bloody murder about that, socialism and all that rot. Why? The long term effect of such a requirement is we will use less gasoline. So less demand for gasoline should result in a bigger supply available, which in a real unregulated or non-monopolistic economy would result in prices dropping. The fact that prices haven't dropped in the face of decreased demand shows that a monopoly or oligopoly is controlling the price of gasoline.
And the President has very little control over that unless you are in favor of some massive anti-trust suits against ExxonMobile and BP etc.
Now considering your original statement I am guessing if President Obama pushed his justice department to break up the huge oil conglomerates you would be on the barricade screaming communism and socialist or some other Fox News or Limbdick talking point.
You obviously don't know much about how the world energy market works. Look up the word "speculator" for starters on your new education.
Shelly, I couldn't agree more. Since Obama has been President he is blamed for anything that happens. Maybe it is because we have too many low information folks or FOX, or Glen Beck followers. Whatever the reason the President does not control gas prices. With the unrest in the ME, or Netanyahu rattling his sabers, these could be reasons for prices or maybe America's fine new electric, or fuel saving autos is reducing demand and the greed heads have to make those huge profits. Romney's passion when chanting "drill baby drill" ought to make any human being that values this planet cringe. It did me.
Did anyone notice that Romney kept saying Obama cut back drilling on public lands and public waters?" Guess what, believe it or not, he was telling the truth, or at least half-truth. Obama did restrict drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP disaster! Why would he do that, I wonder. Tree-hugger!
President Obama does have an energy policy. During his presidency oil production has increased each year. Also, U.S. dependency on foreign oil has decreased from over 60% to about 45%. Since early 2009 U.S. crude oil rigs in operation have increased from about 200 to 1200. There has been a 13% increase in total federal oil production (offshore plus onshore) in the first three years of the Obama administration. Gas prices continue to rise even as we drill more wells. As gas prices rise, oil company profits increase. Since 2009 the top three oil companies profits have increased from about 36 billion to almost 90 billion dollars while these same companies receive about 4 billion dollars per year in tax breaks. Congress consistently votes to continue subsidies to oil companies! During the Obama administration production of renewable electricity has more than doubled. Global instability and weather often cause unpredictible spikes in oil prices. Jes, do your research.
dont you people understand? the price of gas is not set by the adminstration(neither Bush nor Obama) but world conditions and the oil companies! Why are some people so dense? ---- I guess they just want to make political hay!!
Recycling a comment of mine from last night:
Whoever coached Romney...they were hoping the lie would hold. They were hoping the President wouldn't fight back. What was great about this was Romney's eyebrows and jaw...he was so SURE he 'had 'im'...Kind of like the 'have you looked at your pension, have you looked at your pension, have you looked at your pension...' of the 'do you want some advice????' No, if I did you'd be in my cabinet.
All my conservative friends are like, What happened to Romney?
Same as he ever was, folks. He had one good debate out of an entire year of flubs, flips, and dodges.
How blind and needy have Republican voters gotten to consider this person fit for the Oval Office.
Need...,
Please realize that nobody on the right can possibly be an actual friend to anyone to the left of Attila the Hun.
Romney has this condescendingly smug, puppy-eyed grin whenever he thinks he has scored a point. It's really annoying.
RobMe, typical of his ideological type, clearly thinks that his s**t doesn't stink.
Not many in the middle class look at their pensions any more because they don't HAVE one. Romney's grand and glorious private sector businesses saw to that decades ago. Most now offer an "enhanced 401(K)" which is what my former company called it.
So....the Republicans would NOW privatize SS so any retirement savings you have would be subject to the whims of Wall Street. No safety net, no defined benefits. It's a plutocrat's wet dream.
I've been called a muslim, a communist, and a babykiller by my conservative friends. I was told I should be ashamed for posting a link about them looking into the security problems in Libya. One friend has been blocked from facebook, he shall never call me anything ever again. for the other issue I suppose they accept the fact that romney was politicizing the death of 4 americans, in their sheepliness taking pot shots at me, when I wasn't the one doing it lol.
You waste your time on conservatives as friends? I once dated a woman till I found out she was a Republican and I dumped her right after dinner was over.
Close call. My sister-in-law somehow didn't realize her husband was Libertarian/Republican until after marrying him. Now they just have to agree to not discuss politics ever, because he's a pigheaded, unreasonable Fox viewer and she's too busy trying to raise his four kids to properly educate herself on the topics enough to debate him. Sounds like the seventh circle of hell to me.
Open-minded saint that I am, quite a few years ago I dated a woman who was an old style Republican. It took me three years to change her mind. Now she just asks me to fill out her sample ballot.
Romney's religious beliefs were in good form last night. The Mormons believe that women should be subjegated to men. His bullying of the moderator and his dismissive attitude to her and the rules of the debate validate this by his sit down and shut up I am speaking mentality
He wants the rules to be followed when HE'S speaking. You know, the "I'll finish talking and then YOU get your turn." He wants the floor first and last, interrupt in-between and talk over the moderator. He'd be a hoot talking to foreign leaders.
"He'd be a hoot talking to foreign leaders." We've seen how that worked out.
I wish Candy Crowley had been given a remote control that shut off the candidates' mics when they went past the time limit. Surely Romney would not keep talking if the audience could not hear him?
He probably didnt play well with other children when he was young!
Freaking Binders FULL of Women! (lol?)
(Who have to go home and feed their kids.)
Your right - he didn't play well with other children - He pinned them to the ground and cut thier hair for not living up to HIS standards......
My favorite shot in the debate was with Romney talking with the green countdown timer screen in the background. Then it turned yellow. Then it turned red. And he kept talking, and talking... while the screen turned red. I noticed later in the debate, the same angle, they turned off the monitor when it turned red. I wonder which campaign operative ran to the control booth for that one. But he kept talking, and talking...
Romney is not accustomed to being confronted with his many lies. He's been able to get on stage in a variety of locations and say what he thinks the audience wants to hear, truth be damned. Last night was a different experience for him, and he floundered.
Remember a few weeks ago the talk was all about "Zingers"?
Last night, Romney forgot that for a Zinger to work, it has to be TRUE!
Who needed Obama there when you have Candy clearly on your side. He was wrong and so was she. He did not specifically call it an "act of terror", and if he did, why let the UN Ambassador say other wise over and over again. Romney could have clobbered Obama on this, but with Candy running defense how could he?
If you recall, fool, there were attacks from mobs in Egypt at the same time. Lots of unrest. It is pretty clear now that the terrorists were whipping up mobs as cover.
Eric?
ACTS OF TERROR
This was never a mob, this was planned attack. Had nothing to do with a video......nothing.
This was never a mob, this was planned attack. Had nothing to do with a video......nothing.
This was never a mob, this was planned attack. Had nothing to do with a video......nothing.
I've noticed how trolls so often start babbling when they are smacked down.
Coffee.....why did he let UN Ambassador say otherwise (for days) if he meant that statement for Libya? Oh, CNN covering for their moderator's misstep...shocking.
I love all the "Candy on your side" accusations all morning. It's all FOX can do not to wet themselves as they whine about the moderator.
Face it... when you blame the moderator and the venue, you've already lost.
Eric: Do you know how many embassies were attacked during the Cheney/Bu$h regime?
3 times as many. They also presided over the worst intelligence failure in modern American history. You may remember, 9-11??
I wouldn't throw stones in the glass house you're in.
Odd that several things can happen at the same time, like protests of an offensive movie by some and an act of terrorism by others. The occurrence of one does not preclude the instance of the other.
Good thing Bush isn't running, I'd bet he'd wouldn't win.
Alas my friend, Bu$h is running. R-Money is no different than him. He's surrounded himself with Cheney/Bu$h regime veterans.
R-Money is simply another puppet, like Bu$h was, in a long line of puppets the plutocrats parade before the American public every 4 years.
Eric, believe what you need to believe. But you also need to believe that Romney's ass-kissing feel-good talk will end if he gets elected. He'll be signing with a real pen that will do real damage to people like you and me.
You conservatives and your mindless need for a Republican Jesus...when a real man making real efforts to bring our economy around is already in office.
Citizen...,
Those on the right overwhelmingly worship wealth & power, so they grovel at the feet of the plutocrats, but of their puppets as well.
Romney will not be in charge of the country even if he is elected. Grover Norquist runs Congress, and he has said the only thing they will require of the President is the ability to sign his name on whatever legislation they produce.
Oh, well, you know what they say... the truth is left leaning.
She wasn't on anybody's side. She just didn't want lies to overrun the debate under her watch.
Great scare tactic, damage like 8%+ unemployment? Growing deficit? Rising cost to health care, energy and lower paying jobs? More people on welfare? That is damage and that is real.
Despite their hysteria about deficits, those on the right actually love high deficits because they provide them with flimsy excuses to cut good programs that they don't like.
The deficit is not growing, actually. When Obama took office it was $1.4 trillion, this year it was estimated to be $1.08 trillion- that is actually the deficit going down over time. Also, the national unemployment rate is now 7.8%. Health care costs have risen at a much lower rate over the last two years or so than the previous five or ten. There are more people on welfare, but I think all good things come in time. Clearly Obama wants to change this- which is why he talks about getting rid of the tax cuts that encourage manufacturing businesses to go across the seas and employ non-Americans. This should definitely be done. Manufacturing jobs in America would allow, in many cases, for on the job training and would be stable. It is not that Obama does not recognize the problems, it is that he has been prevented, to a large degree by the Republican house and the fillibuster employed by Republican senators more than 500 times. Obama clearly places importance on improved education, as well. Improved education will be a part of solving the problem of "too many people on welfare."
That is the problem with your argument. I also believe that if there were 200 people on welfare that Republicans would view that as "too many people on welfare." I wonder if you also despise the businesses that are on welfare who receive subsidies and tax breaks from the government? Are they just as deplorable? If so, I suggest you write your congress-person and ask them to repeal the energy subsides (which include oil, gas, coal, biodiesel, ethanol, wind etc.), the agricultural subsidies (which include cash payments to farmers when commodity prices fall, loans with no penalty of default, insurance for weather and pest damage, and disaster aid if a crop fails) and transportation subsidies (which include government contracts to private construction companies to help build roads, airports, train stations, etc as well as tax incentives for businesses who make trains, planes and automobiles). Because to be a true anti-welfare individual you would have to oppose all of those. My thought is maybe you pick and choose (as most people do), but a welfare conversation is not complete unless you talk about all of the aspects of welfare.
The idea behind business welfare is that it gives companies a fighting chance to survive in the capitalistic system we have. Why is that if individual people receive welfare they are not being afforded the courtesy of viewpoint? Just curious.
Not to get all facty or anything, but a pretty good synopsis:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghazi-attack/
Complaining about the refs is what losers do.
the President was SO not playing with him.
love that pic you got of him
The way the two men handled the Libyian attack last night demonstrates that we don't need a salesman in chief because we already have a commander in chief.
For me it is clear the President takes the Benghazi attack personally. If I were one of the Libyian terrorists I would be expecting a visit from a Seal Team at any moment. Not a comfortable way to live. They can run but they can't hide.
I also think he takes Romney's effort to exploit the attack for political gain personally. Dan Senor and John Bolton might not have to worry about a visit from the Seals, but they really won't be able to do much in foreign policy outside some cozy Republican or Likud think tank.
Last night the President schooled Romney on how seriously a real President takes his responsibilities.
He showed me how serious he was, as well. He really answered the question he was asked about who denied more security. No, wait, he didn't answer that question.
But he did explain why for two weeks they were saying the attack was spontaneous, not planned. Oh, wait, no he didn't explain that either. Well at least he told us who instructed the UN ambassador to go on the Sunday morning talk shows instead of sending someone from the State deparment or WH! No? He didn't explain that either?
But, we know he is serious because he told us so. That he did say.
More petulant whining from Robbywobby. Don't step on your lower lip, kid.
It's amazing how right wing nutjobs like RobbyWobby and Eric and Shooter cling to this embassy attack as if it's some sort of smoking gun.
It's really just evidence that they can't argue a point, because they have no valid arguments based in reality for the republican point of view.
Kind of like a child clinging to a blanket for a false sense of security. Sad and pathetic.
even more amazing is the alternate reality they have created and live in. Denial on an epic, colossal scale.
Pain, as opposed to your facts.....which are? It's not a smoking gun, it's a failure by BO's administration. I know since there are so many you are having a hard time keeping track.
My, my...the trolls are exceedingly desperate.
What makes it any less an act of terror if it had been a mob whipped up in anger because someone called someone else a dirty name and kicked him in the shin?
Calling it an "act of terror" doesn't necessarily preclude the fact that people didn't know the details. Four of our Americans were killed on "American soil", as a result of hatred by foreign nationals. I don't care WHY or HOW it happened. THAT'S AN ACT OF TERROR! Any AMERICAN that gives a DAMN about this country would understand that and stop moaning over when we were informed of the details at the very least and at most, STOP POLITICIZING IT!
The man in charge of this country knows that and called it exactly what it was. He made no mistake.
Frankly, I'm glad that he was in that seat and not someone ready to strike up another war over it. I like the way Obama gets things done. He's not "in your face" with bluster. He's calm, quiet and methodical AND he's successful. He's the man I want sitting in that seat for the next four years.
Just saying.
This is not American Soil - even Embassies are not American Soil - let alone consultats. THey are covered by rules set up by the Geneva Conventions on Diplomacy..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission
It's always nice to have the trolls come by and demonstrate that English is a foreign language for them.
This is what happens, kids, when Faux news is your only source for information.
Did you hear Crowley say on CNN that Romney was right in the main point that it took weeks for the administration to say it was a planned attack and not a spontaneous attack? Dibble over if using the phrase "acts of terror" is equivalent to calling the attack in Beghazi a terrorist act or not.
Roobbywobby still can't face facts...his mendacious boy RobMe got smacked down.
Rob—That would be why Rachel Maddow and other journalists interpreted the 'acts of terror' comment to mean just that, right?
September 12, 2012
It was all about the president not immediately using the words "act of terror" right up to the point that it was proven that he clearly did. NOW it's about how long it took to distinguish a planned attack from a spontaneous riot.
The GOP must have strong backs by now from all the goal-post moving they engage in.
Wow, let's "collapse" the truth so it will not get out. Here's what Crowley said on CNN after the debate courtesy of the Atlanta Constitution:
Why is everyone here so opposed to facts?
And, 80sGirl, it has always been that GOP position that President Obama was being misleading when he and his administration said it was a spontaneous act from a riot related to a video. If it was an "act of terror" as terrorist act is used in today's world then it was organized and planned. Why didn't Obama say it was an act of terror when the journalist Joy Baher asked on the view if it was a terrorist attack. He said, we are still doing an investigation.
Lastly, collapsing a legitimate comment seems a little like a bully, don't you think? I'm not offended, just a little surprised and disappoint. Oh, well.
Reporter - Detective, was it a Murder? When the police are investigating, have a suspect not yet in custody, and don't want that suspect to know he is being hunted - WHAT is the right response???
Just more whining, narcissistic self-pity from Robbywobby. He got what he richly deserved, but his enormous, typically right-wing sense of entitlement makes him play the victim card again. He is obviously here to spread his propaganda, not for any legitimate purpose. By all rights, he should have been banned long ago. He is nothing but a worthless troublemaker. Self-respecting non-conservatives are kept from posting on right-wing sites, but Robbywobby is still here, still mendacious, still spreading hogwash.
That's right Entropy, if you can't beat them with facts, silence them. I bet you get all giddy at book burnings too.
Its entertaining to see that when I post quotes and link sources, instead of challenging those facts on merit, you say things like:
And JGW, you write:
So, are you saying President Obama is the crafty detective feeding us false information about a video being the cause of the Benghazi attack to deflect attention away from his effort to capture the terrorists? That's what you believe?
Trolls routinely describe their malicious propaganda as "facts". They flatter themselves that they have a right to spread their misinformation wherever they want to, while non-conservatives are not allowed in right-wing forums. As is the case with those on the right in general, they are devoid of conscience and incapable of shame. And they are inordinately fond of wallowing in totally unwarranted self-pity.
Entropy, RobDon is not a troll. He just has a different point of view. He argues fairly and doesn't distort facts unless his facts have been distorted for him.
BTW RobDon, cleaning up some loose ends, it doesn't matter that the President didn't directly address the question on security. He shouldn't have. I'm kind of surprised in retrospect that the right didn't criticize him for making jokes at the Correspondent's Dinner 'while our brave SEALs were in harm's way'. And it doesn't matter whether or not he went to Vegas for a fundraiser(he didn't, it was a rally), that bigasz plane he flies around in is a portable White House. You think you are well connected to the world with your flimsy smart phone? Try on the Prez's duds.
Miracle, I agree re: the mobile White House. I wish there could be more productive dialogue from both sides. But, this is the political season (like few others) and everything is spun for maximum political benefit instead of the merits or possible benefits.
Most have acknowledged two things, Romney was wrong to speak so quickly during the actual crisis and the administration has at the least done a very poor job of managing information surrounding all the chaos and Benghazi attack.
It amazes me that people actually hate Romney. I don't understand such a visceral response. I don't hate President Obama, I think he's a good man, great dad, and sincerely wants to be successful as President and for the country. I just disagree with the way he wants to accomplish a lot of his agenda.
Hopefully, whoever wins will be able to lead cooler heads to find solutions that everyone can at least support even if not their first choice.
Miracle, you are full of it. Robbywobby has a long and ugly history on this site. Anyone who has been here a while and has a decent regard for objective reality knows he is a troll, and treats him as such. His occasional forays into smarmy "sincerity" are a bad joke. His statement "It amazes me that people actually hate Romney" is laughably fatuous and disingenuous. Any self-respecting person to the left of Attila the Hun has more than sufficient reason to despise Romney and his supporters/apologists. Those reasons have been dealt with at great length on this site. There is a wealth of information quite sufficient to show that Romney is a lying, sociopathic, blood-sucking parasite of the 1%.
Yea, let's just hate those with whom we disagree. Hate. Call them names. Insult them. Minimize them. Defeat them. We might become infected with their clear mental illness and immoral character. Good idea! Go with it.
Let's certainly not engage them in such a way that we might persuade them to see things differently or, God forbid, that we might learn something new.
Whine, whine, whine, whine, whiiiiine. Take your guilt trip and shove it. Trying to "engage" with someone like you (or anyone on the right, for that matter) is a waste of time and an insult to one's intelligence. It is absolutely impossible to "engage" with someone who is aggressively dishonest. and there are plenty of people here who know full well that you are thoroughly dishonest, despite your lame, flagrantly insincere attempt to seem "reasonable". You must be fun for the priest to listen to at confession.
RobDon, I don't HATE Rmoney, I don't TRUST him. I do not view CEO experience as good for government. I do not want to think of this country as a business. Yes, we have a budget, but the goal is not profit.
I don't speak for anyone but myself. The thing that bugs me is that folks do seem to call out hate, but it's totally the character of Rmoney being one that is not at all in touch with the needs of the people in this country.
I do not view this country as being in need of a CEO.
The RW is going nuts trying to have people think the moderator "aided" and "lied". The Sept. 12 Rose garden the President said it was an "act of terror". Now making political hay from the General stating there were witnesses stating there was a protest at the consulate after the fact.
Let us repeat: The President called it an act of terror and there is no "cover up" that the actual haters are accusing.
They hate President Obama with a white hot heat and will do everything possible to get a man they do not really want, anyone that will have working digits to sign what is put in front of him.
It doesn't matter to them that a very large number of us DO NOT want that. We do NOT WANT what they will put in front of the empty suit with working digits.They only want tax cuts, that is all. Why else would Adelson give millions to Newt, then millions to Rmoney? Doesn't matter, just someone to sign the tax cuts or MIC spending or whatever needs rewarding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wYYX0mZsQA
Sandy. Well said! I find it interesting that the Christian conservative faction is behind Romney as a potential leader of their country. The majority of my family are charismatic Christians (now there is an oxymoron) and have always believed and taught that the Mormon religion is a cult and that they follow a false god. They hate Obama so much, they are willing to justify their beliefs to fuel their hate. I have watched, spoken with, and argued ad nauseum with these "Christians" and have asked them what it is that makes them hate the President. They never answer, just become maniacal in their defense of their bigotry. And that is the issue; the President is black! They would rather follow someone that is against everything they believe and worship just to have a white man leading their country again. You are also correct that they could care less what "We the people" want. They want their tax cuts and their government subsidies.
I have the same trouble with some folks. They will not say why they "can't" vote for President Obama. That leaves me to imagine why do they really find him so unacceptable? I say I have no problem voting for him (and I already did, BTW).
But I have a clue, as this one person feels resentful that many jobs she applied for desire bilingual skills. She views it as favoring "Hispanics" instead of "maybe I should take a language course".
I haven't been here for very long, but my observation of RobDon is that, when someone presents factual information contradicting his claims, he ignores them and focuses on the easier targets among the Maddowblog commenters.
Let me follow up here in reverse order.
Terez27, I promise I do not try to ignore responsive comments to my postings. If you see it and point it out specifically, I'll response if seen. Most responses are to the effect, "you are just lying you no good...etc." There's little way to respond to those.
Sandy, most people in my experience are not nearly as engage as followers here thus they only have a surface or sound bite knowledge of either candidate. This why they can't give substative reasons why they support or don't support either. IMHO.
CP, there's a different between the definition of a theological cult and the term "cult" we think of from culture - like the one at Waco. Here's a generally accepted definition:
Sandy, not trusting is a great reason not to vote for someone. It is totally different from the hate that carries such strong mean spirited hate I see on both sides.
Lastly, there is still a lot of unanswered question reagarding Obama "acts of terror" (not "act") comment. Like why did several days later did the administration send the UN ambassador (and others) to say it was a spontaneous act. But, this is definately being used for political purposes even if there are some legitmate concerns...again, IMHO.
Rob
Acts of terror could include the attack on the safe house yes? The problem Rob is that Romney et al are trying to pretend the Rose Garden speech never happened. They are trying to pretend that President Obama never ever said the word terror or attack until two weeks later when such a chargeis patently not true. Presuming that there is a difference between the words act and acts is a bit of a red herring.
Terez27,
Excellent observation!
Maria and RobDon,
Are they really going to argue about singular or plural? President Obama was responding to the act of terror in the entire speech, that was the incident to which he was referring and any future events.
Really, I am not kidding… It makes me physically queasy that this is the "gotcha political spin" on the right. I agree with the President and the mother of the Seal and ask to "lay off".
Americans were killed in a foreign terror attack against America. Let the State Department and DOD, all the pertinent U.S. Officials deal with this, NOT the Rmoney campaign.
I agree with the "gotcha" part, too. The mother of one of those killed also said she's not getting answers as well. That may change over time for her as well, hopefully so.
The bigger discussion is (should) not (be) about "act of terror" or "acts of terror." The bigger discussion is why for over two weeks was the WH saying the Libya attack was a spontaneous riot to a video (and I can provide the links to time and quotes of WH operatives if needed).
Two options: It was just very very badly handled in getting information to the American public, or there was a purpose to mislead or deflect. Those are the only two reasons I can see as plausible.
Entropy or Terez, if you point out incorrect facts, I'll be glad to source or look at your opposing sources. Granted, one can always disagree with someone's opinion or conclusion but generally, my facts are pretty solid. If you disagree, point one out specifically. Until then, I guess you are just making noise.
Project much, Robbywobby? Again, you can take your guilt trip and shove it. You are a weaseling, grossly dishonest right-wing propagandist. You seem to enjoy getting told off, you ask for it so often. That's very Catholic of you. Do you wear a hair shirt, too?
Entropy, you need a new schtick.
Why does it seem necessary to interject the mother of the Seal into this? I am not kidding, this is disgusting. I think you need to ask yourself "why am I so determined to have this discussion and drag the victim's mother into it?".
If you wonder why people are calling you out, that is why. You are so convinced by these political RWers that you should feel suspicious as to drag it out incessently. Either you dislike the gotcha of it or you like it well enough.
I have also heard of concern trolling, BTW.
Still projecting. Your insincerity would make Uriah Heep* cringe.
* No, folks, not the band.
Sandy, you brought the mother of the seal into this discussion:
I just noted there was also a mother who wanted more information. Why can you evoke the parent of dead Seal and I can't?
I was asking for folks to lay off the politicization and you brought her into an argument that I asked to lay off and so did she.
Let it go. I said what I thought and you seemed to want to keep dragging it on.
It's free speech to say what you want, but I did not evoke her in the way you implied. I was trying to lead us out of the politicization, not into it, as you and Rmoney did.
Why is her comment to "lay off" any more valid than the other mother asking for more information to come forward?
I agree it should not be politicized but that's probably near impossible. There is legitimate questions outside the political arena that are appropriate from an accountability standpoint. Unfortunately, we are at the peak of a presidential election cycle so just asking the questions about what happen can be construed as political.
I am not answering you any more about this. I am not freaking out like the RW are trying to make people do.
I am "letting it go", OK. I am not going to politicize this, but I did not feel any more politics should be played with this incident. You and others are are picking at a scab.
RobDon,
For example, you never addressed this post of mine. It seems that when you don't have an argument, you instead focus on people who are calling you names, etc. Like I said, 'easy targets'.
Terez, you are correct. I just missed it. At the end of this comment I'll give you my response...sorry for the oversight/delay.
If you look at most of my responses, they are substantive with generally as neutral as possible sources - major news agencies, not blogs or right leaning gotcha sites. If I was responding to name callers, I would have no need to for references. Most responses to "name callers" is a sentence or two at best.
Maybe you disagree, but I think a fair assessment demonstrates this, but it's hard to look at oneself objectively. That being said, let me respond to your specific question:
I think the CBO revised the fy2009 deficit prediction a few weeks before Obama took office for several reasons. The were predicting a short fall in revenue because of the downturn. They were predicting inflation impact. And, they were taking into account the housing debacle and financial institutions uncertainty. There is debate on what caused those two thinks but let's put it on Bush and Republicans for sake of argument.
I couldn't tell if the CBO took into account the talked about stimulus that was yet to be decided. Here's a fair summary of the CBO adjustment.
Bottomline: it is a valid point and has to be considered in the discussion. I guess part of my point is that Obama took 2009 spending (much meant as a one time solution to a problem) and made it his standard for the following years.
I hope this demonstrates I never intend to leave something on the table. Sometimes people make valid points that stand on their own and need no comment. In this case, you asked a question and I failed to answer.
Thanks...
"I hope this demonstrates I never intend to leave something on the table."
Lol! A euphemism for "I insist on having the last word!
I don't think it's really debatable that the $1.2 trillion deficit on the day Obama took office had nothing to do with Obama's policies, and therefore he did not double the deficit. And he has reduced the deficit every year since, despite his more transparent accounting which was posted about several times and which you also never addressed. (This has a great deal to do with differences in the Bush deficits and the Obama deficits, quite aside from extra spending required by the economic downturn.) There were a few other posts you neglected, some of which were mine, some of which were others', to take on easier targets in the same thread. Just wanted to let you know that people notice stuff like that.
Entropy—just thought I should point out that him insisting on having the last word sort of the mirror image of the actual problem here.
I have often felt Romney was the role model for "Mad Men" - but now I am certain - he is concerned with getting the "little woman" home on time to cook supper
I remember the Benghazi moment and more than anything I remember Obama looking Romney dead in the eye and the genuine look of fear in Romney's eyes. That was the moment in a fight when you know that the man you are in it with really wants to kick the living crap out of you. He looked a genuinely angry man in the eye and he didn't just blink he cringed.
The words that come to mind are "Not in the face Not in the face"
I didn't interpret that look as fear at all. I interpreted it as incredulity. Romney really believed Obama was lying. He was trying to be sternly incredulous—an adult questioning the statement of a child.
That look from Romney to President Obama -- with the raised eyebrows, open eyes, and a mean look to his face as he moved in for what he expected would be a kill -- and the hissy tone in his voice as he turned to say he just wanted it on the record... very telling as to what sort of person Romney is. Nasty guy, IMO.
I just wish there had been a camera on his face when Crowley fact checked him in real time, Obama asked her (with enjoyment in his voice) to repeat and she did. I would very much like to have seen Romney's face in that instant.
Donni, if you want to see their faces in that moment, watch the Daily Show coverage (about 5:50).
Paraphrasing Romney: "I'm going to get the economy going so strong again that employers will even hire women!"
What a tool. You would almost think he doesn't know what it's like to live in a family where both spouses need to work. Oh... wait.
Generally speaking, I don't care much for the term "tool"; however, in this case you are exactly correct in using it. Romney is indeed a tool, a tool of an oligarchy that seeks to but control of this country by funding his campaign (directly and indirectly) at levels unheard of before. These shady billionaires have given Romney unlimited funds. Think about that...unlimited. And with all that money the best he can do is a dead heat with Obama. I think that may say something good about the American voter.
You are also right that Romney is totally removed from the life of ordinary Americans. I think that is most clear in the things that Ann says. He is a little more guarded but it still comes through well enough that you know he was speaking from the heart about the accursed 47% of us that are scum under his feet.
I have often felt that Governor Romney was the role model for the show "Mad Men" - now I am sure - he is concerned that the "little woman", if she must work, get home in time to cook supper
Hey everyone. My comments are for those 8 people in the focus group. The ones with Ron Allen. 4 women were asked a question by Chris Matthews, and the women basically came across that issues with women were not important to them. That to me is very scary!! The other issue was the economy. Most on the panel felt that Mitt Romney had a better plan, this is so confusing to me because I have yet to see a plan from the republicans that has come close to something being consistent or with any specifics.
Why is it scary that some voters put the common good ahead of their own special interests? Women aren't single-issue voters. I think the choice is clear either way, but you shouldn't expect women to vote on "women's issues" only.
And I was left trying to figure out how 3 undecideds had decided all of a sudden on Romney last night after that performance. 2 of them women. I just didn't understand that whatsoever.
When is undecided not really undecided?
If you had read and I would ask that you reread my comment. I stated the question by Chris Matthews was a direct question to the women about that particular issue , not the whole debate.
Yes, but they didn't indicate that the question wasn't important to them at all. They simply indicated that it wasn't the most important factor in their decision for president.
When Obama answered that question, I thought he looked more Presidential and serious than I'd ever seen him. I told my husband that anything Romney had to say at that point would make him look small, and I confess, I felt a bit sorry for him. But then Romney began with that ridiculously petty and untrue shot about fundraising and ended with the equally untrue meme about an "apology tour" and I stopped feeling sorry for him. My nine-year-old child would have looked more presidential than Romney at that point. It was simply shameful.
I agree completely. Romney unmasked looked like a salesman confronted with facts who crumbles exposing a reprehensible empty suit willing to say anything to close the deal.
R-Money's look at that point was like a snake oil salesman who was just run out of town by an angry mob
It cracked me up when Romney talked about the tax breaks for middle class people and all their investments..Um yeah...He actually thinks that middle class people have tons of interest bearing accounts......like him...NOBODY is talking about how the audience clapped for Obama?? THAT was huge!!!!!!!
Yep, Wrongney talks about tax breaks for the middle class, but then when you take away the mortgage interest deductions, child care credits etc. it ends up being a wash, and the tax break becomes NOT AT ALL a tax break, it is simply a wash. Why don't people get that?
Remember that Romney thinks the middle class earns $250,000 per year. That's his middle income numbers.
I was wondering if Obama would address the audience, and ask for a show of hands for everyone who is interested in paying less capital gains taxes on their mutual funds earnings.
Because only real Americans have "skin the in the game", right?
It is mind boggling to think that anyone with a uterus and a brain would even consider voting for Wrongney
gurliekangaroo,
It is mind boggling to think that anyone that cares about anyone they know with a uterus and a brain would consider voting for this man. I find it interesting that my niece is the beneficiary of every government service possible for a single, low-income single mother and yet she is willing to vote for Wrongney. I have no clue what she thinks will happen when she has another baby with no father, little income, and no money for medical care of her children. That is how much some people hate our President. I will vote against my best interest to have ANYONE but HIM in The White House.
sorry - this is a duplicate - I already posted
Worth saying several times :-)
We've seen the many faces of Mitt Romney through this entire election season; conservative Mitt, reactionary Mitt, CEO Mitt, sexist Mitt, racist Mitt, moderate Mitt and last night despicable Mitt, none of those faces has been very attractive. Mitt Romney and his campaign are not only incompetent in their performance, they have been so bad at disinformation that they have given lying politicians a new low to shoot for. Sorry Republicans, I do not want this "person" in any position of deciding life or death for another human being.
He is despicable, I agree. Last night he bragged about how he knew how to create jobs. Really? His record in Massachusetts showed he was among the Worst in the nation. He was 47th in the country, that is at the bottom of the list and he also left them with an 8 million dollar deficit. Very scary
Eric and Robdon seem to think this is just the president for them. Problem is, they are correct. Mitt would be a president just for them. He's proven time and again, he lacks the capacity to be leader of a diverse and multi-cultural first world nation. His global view is extremely narrow, it excludes far more people than it includes.
This is the information that has to get out there, HAS to. Romney was NOT the governor he represents himself to have been . . . fortunately for him he wasn't a Democrat with a Republican legislature. Democrats are far more wiling to work with the opposition than are Republicans; just look at the Congress we now have.
Dear Barak, Perhaps a moment might come when this zinger might become handy:
"Gov, I know you probably just misspoke when you said "my friends, corporations are people. You probably meant people, corporations are my friends...
My wish for the next debate- the forum I would like
1. No audience
2. Moderator to ask the questions
3. Each candidate gets EXACTLY 3 minutes to answer the question. At exactly the end of that 3 minutes the mike gets turned off no matter what, whether they are done or not.
4. When each candidate speaks, the opponent's mike is turned OFF.
Wouldn't that be awesome?
YES!!!!
NO! That would end up in a 90 minute super PAC commercial.
Would be extremely boring to hear and see nothing but all the broken record talking points, unopposed lies, and robotic blabber at which R&R are so good at!
O' s true and justified anger and R's terrified face were priceless. That said more than all the words. And for the radio listeners: R's stuttering after being caught in one of his most blatant lies about the Rose Garden speech had the same effect. And the coolest ever, low voice Go Ahead, Governor, and Louder, Candy... Who can ever forget that?
Agree with CCHCCH.
Last night's debate was great in part because it did get heated. And once Romney started breaking the rules (so unusual for him/snark), and they started with the back and forth, a lot of important stuff came out. I admit I was kind of hoping that Romney would throw a punch at the President and get carted off in cuffs. That would have made the night even better.
I was very happy that the fighting Obama showed up -- and that he seemed to be enjoying the demolition of Romney. I never felt there was any real reason to be overly respectful of a snooty entitled rich guy who cannot stop lying -- and whose presumed policies would likely wreck the country even worse than GWB's did. One should be able to enjoy creaming a nasty opponent.
That would be kinda boring, actually....