Take Two
October 16th, 2012 - 10:41 pm
There should be no hard feelings about asymmetries in the conduct of the debate. That was the setup going in. Any realistic assessment of debates and political coverage has simply got to accept that the thumb is on the scale, and either the margin of victory in every engagement must be so big as to be unmistakable or else the advantage of the administration must be taken into account from the beginning.
You can’t fight authoritarianism on the premise that they will play “fair”. Fair is not in the rulebook. That’s just the way it is.
Belmont Commenters
How to Publish on Amazon’s Kindle for $2.99
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
The fact is, Mitt made the right point, but in a weird, blunted, half-hearted sort of way, due to Crowley’s interjection.
It’s at moments like this that I really miss Newt. He would have found a way to push the point home in spite of the odds.
Still, reality is reality, and facts are facts, and the facts are: we spent the last 3 weeks listening to Team Obama peddle an absolute fantasy-narrative regarding Benghazi.
At the end of the day, I can’t believe that the people can be convinced that they simply didn’t hear/see what they heard/saw.
Cheating — fixing the game changes the incentives and the dynamics. The game is effectively no longer confined to the board. The game has now expanded to the room containing the players and the people who make the rules and oversee the ‘formal’ game.
The other term for this is a loss of legitimacy. A loss of legitimacy for the board game — the formal political process. It doesn’t mean that formal politics has become irrelevant; only that it’s is subject to growing auxiliary influences.
This is how fascisms start. When you break the established rules you undermine the very system that empowered the rule-makers in the first place. The press by acting in such a partisan manner has weakened one of the pillars of democracy: itself. It has abandoned its expected role and there will be consequences.
And one of the challenges going forward after 2012 is whether the toothpaste can be put back into the tube and the centrality of the formal political game can be restored.
That will hinge on the degree to which the destabilizing elements can be downsized. The main offender is the bloated size of the elite itself. It owes its existence to very legitimacy it is tearing up. The elite is now a menace to itself. Fortunately the economic crisis is whittling it down, and threatens to reform it perforce but its instincts are still rooted in the memory of its heyday.
The most important thing right now is to get someone with a semblance of rationality back in charge. 2013 bodes fair to be the year of disaster. It’s when the Euro and possibly the Dollar hit the wall; it’s when the Middle East blows up. It’s when those forces may threaten to tear apart America.
The task is to survive the crisis, carve a path out of the morass and to keep the nation together.
There’s not much you can expect from Romney except that maybe he’ll act with enough rationality to keep the raft in the middle of the rapids. That is more than the current administration can offer.
That they will lie about Benghazi to win a debating point is understandable. That they may truly believe their own lie — that is the scary part. Romney offers the prospect of some competence in crisis. Obama may sacrifice anything for expediency. His problem is he knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. There’s not enough design margin left to run that risk safely.
That is what the choices are principally about. Whether to risk a leader who offers some chance of survival or to persist with someone who is negligent of the risks — and determined to double down on his fantasies.
To woo is not to argue — and it’s wooing that the single-female demographic needs.
And for that, I think Mitt is actually gaming the Wan correctly.
The votes that are up for grabs ARE NOT THOSE PAYING ATTENTION TO BENGAZIGATE.
———–
What Mitt has to do is to lower single female defense shields.
By NOT rising up to the manetee, gentleman Romney didn’t raise the ire of this critical class of emoter.
Mitt also knocked it out of the park WRT jobs and the economy.
Not withstanding the Wan’s conjured BLS stats — ever more join the unemployed ranks with every day of his incumbency.
Laid off employees are tough voters. There’s no spinning that.
I agree with cellec.
The bias was on full display in last night’s debate, and I would surmise that a majority of the American people saw it for what it was. The thumb on the scale is no longer invisible, and folks are beginning to demand a reaccounting of previous purchases of ground chuck.
What happened last night was truly surreal. We are watching an entire system of Leftist thought, and its Wasington-Media-Academic axis, lose legitimacy almost by the hour, right in front of our faces. It’s odd to watch the national figures keep going through the same old motions, as if the spell was not already broken. It’s more odd to realize that I myself keep going through the same old motions, even though I knew that the spell was wearing off long ago. But I guess that’s what happens when you are forced to live with outrage and untruth for too long: you become cynical while awaiting your opportunity to break out. That cocoon of irony that you spin around yourself to protect your soul, eventually becomes the warp and weft of your daily life, the unconsious habits of reaction that you use to navigate through the sludge of modernity. It takes a real effort of intellect and will to start slashing away those fibers, and maybe that’s why Mitt didn’t slam Obama to the mat as hard as he could have—we’re all too used to tip-toeing around the Left and its avatars.
But a worn-off spell waits for no one. The mighty barricades of the Progressive Left are beginning to drip away like ice castles at the approach of spring. Or perhaps I should reverse the seasons and say that the Leftist cocktail parties are beginning to empty out like beach vollyball courts at the approach of winter, because we are about to enter the winter of our discontent.
The senescence and passing of the Boomers, the collapse of the Pax Americana, and a whole stack of unpaid bills about to come due—that’s what we saw last night. The presidential debate was only the surface; the import of the times keeps breaking through the surface like pillow lava. Events favor Romney, not because he will fix everything but because he is unlikely to screw them up worse. Obama is the monument to all our lies and self-deceit. He is the homunculus created by our cosmic sin. Romney is only a sinner, and may be redeemable.
Without Crowley’s intervention Obama’s answer on Benghazi would have simply been one of several items the pundits would have picked over in the coming days. By jumping into the ring and pummeling one of the fighters Crowley has fixed the Libya incident in the public mind. People forget most boxing matches. But they never forget the one where the referee hits a boxer over the head with a stool. Her “correction” has become tomorrow’s story — and possibly the rest of the week’s.
And now Benghazi — which might have been lost in the general shuffle — will become the subject of constant replay. After taking the trouble of shifting the albatross onto Hillary’s shoulders Crowley’s ill-advised grandstanding has moved it right back on to Obama’s.
The principle is that when you have got something to hide or are ashamed of, then leave it in the dark. Do not — as Crowley did — turn a 3 million candlepower spotlight on it. But she did. She couldn’t resist it and now her ‘help’ may in the end prove a hindrance.
She should have stayed out of it; and then through Hillary’s acceptance of responsibility, the events in Libya would have slid into the back pages; headed toward the end. Now they’ve only just begun.
Crowley took dead aim at Romney but inflicted a serious wound on Obama instead. No real surprise; everyone knows the media hasn’t been shooting straight for decades now.
Newt commits a multitude of random unforced errors, Romney does not.
Personal Histories: No Contest
Agree w/Wretch et-al that it is critical that Benghazi not fade as the MSM and BHO so desperately wanted.
Not so likely, post Candyland.
Luntz Focus Group Of Mostly Former Obama Voters Switch To Romney
A Frank Luntz focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters say they now support Mitt Romney.
“Forceful, compassionate, presidential,” one participant said.
“Confident and realistic,” said another.
“Presidential,” another told Luntz.
“Enthusiastic,” another reacted.
“Our next president,” one man said.
“Dynamo, winner,” said one more.
“He’s lied about everything. He lied to get elected in 2008, that’s why I voted for him. I bought his bull. And he’s lied about everything, he hasn’t come through on anything. And he’s been bullshitting the public,” one member of the focus group said.
Part two of the focus group is available here.
Romney and the RNC need to make her intrusion into the Debate a major issue. They need to demand a public apology broadcast at the beginning of the next debate. Ms. Crowley was wrong in her facts. She had no reason to intervene; and stepped into it when she intervened. She had previously thrown a fit about her duties as a moderator, and was determined to make her mark. Unfortunately she definitely made a mark. Too bad for her she did it so clumsily, and based on her previous words and actions, she has NO alibi for her poor behavior.
Romney and the RNC should demand an apology for this action by Ms. Crowley. They should also discuss the other biased actions against Romney and Ryan. The interruptions, the unfair division of time, the refusals to give them rebuttal time. This shows a definite bias against the Republicans.
Make an example out of this instance. Draw a Bright Line in the sand. If the debate commission does not want to agree, tell them that Monday will be the last debate. And that their cushy jobs are ended. We can arrange debates without them.
This biased behavior needs to be called out and at least reduced, if not ended. What is the downside? The MSM is already biased, and if they try to retaliate, their biases will only become more apparent. A majority of Americans do not trust the MSM already. Retaliation by the MSM for Ms. Crowley’s apology would only make more people aware of their disrespect and biases. And any retaliation by the MSM would not change their current poor coverage significantly.
Obama may have “won” the debate on technicality over Romney’s failed Libya attack but Romney cleans up the house on the economy, jobs, taxes, the deficit, and even edges out a win on healthcare. (Source: CBS and CNN post-debate polls)
Add on to those facts the idea here that increased Libya exposure in the media over the next few days will hurt Obama….
I think Romney is in good shape and I’d be willing to say that polls over the next week will show continued momentum towards Romney.
It’s the economy stupid after all, right?
Candy Crowley: He Was Right
Moderator: Romney was ‘right in the main’ on Benghazi, but ‘picked the wrong word’
After the debate, debate moderator Candy Crowley said Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word” on the Obama administration’s immediate response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.
Crowley interrupted Romney during the debate, insisting that President Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror.”
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
In a statement given in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, Obama emphasized an anti-Islam video, before saying that “no acts of terror would shake the resolve of this great nation.”
The administration’s narrative on the attack over the next two weeks was muddled.
On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice attributed the attack on the U.S. Consulate to violent protests stemming from a “heinous and offensive” video.
On Sept. 25, the president himself declined to call the attack an act of terrorism during an interview with “The View,” saying that an investigation was still ongoing.
Update (12:22 a.m.): After the debate, “Romney was actually right on Libya” trended on Twitter in the United States:
I saw approximately 4.2 seconds of the debate, as I was switching between DVDs.
Obama was talking about “fairness”….
Romney wins!
It is breathtaking that Crowley had the nerve to channel Bill Clinton’s mendacity.
She actually ascribed believing in that as an attitude to her Republican critics, implying that they have a petty attachment to the truth. This is another eruption of the Ratherite defense of “Fake but accurate.” To partisan operatives the narrative is everything. It does not matter if reality contradicts them. The goal is out there. Obama needs four more years to grind the burrs of selfish Republicanism from the body politic but once the world has been through a cleansing fire then Paradise will appear. Until then the rubes need to be cajoled with assurances that Obama loves the Free Market and honors the 2nd Amendment and they need to get stuffed with free cheese.
There are also Messianic Apocalyptics on the Right who want Romney to fail in the belief that system collapse will lead to some Libertarian Utopia as envisioned by Robert Heinlein. We need to shift the momentum, blert is as usual correct. We need to restore sanity and reality to the public square. Once that is done then there will be evidence of success to contrast with a record of failure. That will give us the space to reeducate the public and discuss a thousand examples where the Authoritarians have overreached.
System collapse, as hoped for by the fringes of Left and Right, will lead to fear and that will lead to increased centralization and regimentation. The end result will not be Liberty but Fascism.
The last thing any sane person should want is the Crowleys and Obama holding the levers of power when TSHTF in the Middle East Asia Venezuela and the Euro Zone, or for that matter in America. Now get out there and help elect Mitt Romney.
Obama pulled a “slick Wille” it depends what meaning of the word is, is. “act of terror” rather than a Terrorist Act”. The shooting in CO was an act of terror. A terrorist act is a planned action for political or military gain.
BHO basically ignored the black questioner re:
His life was not better.
…reciting his talking points, instead.
(he actually prepared a bit this time)
Romney addressed the substance of the man’s concern.
I don’t know about anyone else but my mind was made up 4 years ago as to which party I was going to vote for in November. I just did’nt know the guys name. I find myself watching the debates not to find out what either man has to say but simply to see how different the media’s account of what I just watched differs from my own version.
Time and time again I watch the media not to gain insight to what I just saw but to get confirmation of my assessment of what just happened. Why do I keep doing this time and time again?
I was actually staggered last night at the presidents insistance that he called the attack in Libya at “terrorist attack.” Everyone knows he and his team didn’t. Everyone…everywhere…until yesterday when Hillary fell on the sword. The most bizzare part was that Obama didn’t even answer the question of why the requests for more security was ignored. I was just sitting waiting, and waiting and waiting for Rommney to simply say, “I’m sorry, I missed that. Why exactly wasn’t security beefed up again?” When he didn’t, for a split second I actually thought Candy would follow up with the question. Silly me. We all saw which side Candy took.
” Truth forever on the scaffold
Wrong forever on the throne”
JOURNALIIST:
What was once as valuable a trade as the lookout at the masthead; because they are perched higher up they can see whats ahead and give timely warning; has become a pack of carnival barkers.
“Heya, heya, heya, lookee – lookee – lookee”
Their job is to make you believe that what has no value at all is the most wonderful thing you will ever lay your eyes on.
Considering Romney faced three opponents last night, he did well but not beyond my expectations. I was mostly dissapointed at the lame questions by the lame “undecided” voters. I can not shake my belief they were plants.
The Benghazi issue is not dead and will be revisited in the next debate. Gun walking is another foreign policy subject that can also be revisited in the next debate.
Wretchard–”The principle is that when you have got something to hide or are ashamed of, then leave it in the dark. Do not — as Crowley did — turn a 3 million candlepower spotlight on it. But she did. She couldn’t resist it and now her ‘help’ may in the end prove a hindrance.”
My rabbi says that there are two kinds of good–revealed good and concealed good. Revealed good is when you know right away Yippee! Concealed good is what Candy did last night–her action seemed to hurt Mitt initially but will be revealed as the gift that keeps on giving.
More evidence that CNN tried to influence the outcome of the debate; a certain “Catherine Fenton” – the one who asked why women earn less than men, appears to be “Catherine Fenton”, media coordinator of Code Pink Long Island. Why of course she was undecided- why should you ask?
http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/16/was-undecided-questioner-catherine-fenton-media-coordinator-of-codepink-long-island/
The morning after verdict as one commenter in the last thread wrote before is that Romney flat out won the debate. But to make matters worse – far worse- for the Bamster, the next week will all be about Obama’s debate lie about Benghazi.
To really put this lying traitor of a President in his place, Romney should open the next debate asking Buraq for an apology to the American People for his out and out lie on Benghazi at the end of the last debate.
Blert: The votes that are up for grabs ARE NOT THOSE PAYING ATTENTION TO BENGAZIGATE.
It’s worse than that. They don’t even know anything happened. Literally. No idea that anything went on.
To the extent that this debate exchange has those people asking themselves, “Did something happen in Libya?” and then maybe reading something online about it, then it’s all to the good. It can’t help Obama.
But in the larger picture, Blert nails it again saying it’s wooing that’s needed. Facts? What matter facts? They mean nothing — less than nothing, even, because they are annoying — to the single female demo that pulls the lever for the coolest/sexiest candidate.
It is very difficult for Romney — boring white male — to out-cool the “exotic” Obama, but the one way to do it is to be more in command. The ultimate button you can push for the single, politically ignorant woman is the button of Male Authority. To channel Whiskey, they LOVE LOVE LOVE strong, authoritative men, men of decision and action. Romney has been coming across that way in spades during these debates, while Obama has seemed the wuss.
The Aura of Exotic Blackness will still win Obama most of the single female vote, but we don’t need most of it. We only need enough to either switch to Romney or just to not vote at all to take this thing.
Teresita said…
CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
So Romney was debating Crowley, and Obama was the moderator. Check!
—
Perfect
o/t: regarding ‘cheating’. Shocking, I know.
Former Media Coordinator of CodePink Long Island Was One of the “Undecided” Questioners
Wretch,
Yes. Soon we’ll begin to ask why AlQ chose that consulate to mount such a forceful attack, including the 6 hour firefight between those 40+ people massed in the rear of the compound, not there doing diplomacy? What were they doing?
That’s what’s worth all the lying and coverup. Clearly AlQ wanted what they were doing to stop. Stevens killing was a bi-product of the raid, as far as AlQ is concerned.
Was “Undecided” Questioner Catherine Fenton Former Media Coordinator of CodePink Long Island? [UPDATE: Probably not]
link
I’m not quite as exercised at Crowley, whom I never heard of before this week, and all I knew about her was that she was a hostess twinky at MSNBC, which is bad enough. She was a far better moderator than I’d hoped for on that basis.
And here’s the thing – Romney did “choose the wrong word”. I don’t care when Obambus used this word in that sentence. The reason Romney spoke up early was that Obambus was apologizing for the United States, acting like a wimp, a dhimmi, or even a Muslim. He was saying IT WAS OUR FAULT!
If Romney didn’t even want to shoot at the actual target, then he deserves whatever he gets. If this was an actual decision by his debate prep team, and I guess it was, then it was a poor one.
–
Jimmy Kimmel went out on the street last night BEFORE THE DEBATE and asked people how they had liked “last night’s debate”, and the consensus was very pro-Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UrOmhH2PeI&feature=player_profilepage
As Jimmy said at the end: God Bless America!
–
blert on last thread: But, being a spreadsheet mavin, Mitt is going to find that the Wan has entirely destroyed America’s design margin — and that he’ll have to declare a national emergency if there is to be any hope for the US Dollar.
The sins of Obambus I are mostly those of inaction and being a fool and the leader of a party of fools. It’s Wall Street’s construction of the bubble that popped via market failure in 2008, which has eaten away at the margin. Even the bubble itself may be praised (arguably) as having preserved the Amerian economy for another 10 or 20 years, or we would have gone over the edge much earlier. The market failure is a technocratic item, it was the fundamentals that have been failing for a generation, not to mention the forces of globalization as China has risen. The dollar may yet squeak by, and if it does, I think Bernanke ought to have some statues raised to him. I’m not so sure that Romney knows much more about these things than does Obambus. But at least I think I’ve glimpsed Romney’s best at these debates, and it’s several notches above Obambus. Doh.
25. Aristide
Thank you. By the time I’d like to make the correction, the time out had expired.
Cry, screech, moan or wail
The thumb’s on the scale
The press intervenes for their man
They jigger the news
And suppress the views
Of those whom they hate ‘cause they can
They smile the quick smile
Of hate all the while
Insisting they’re fairer than that
To choirs they sing
And every day bring
New paper to spread for the cat
They clearly see death
With each lying breath
Of printed and well spoken lies
Their readership’s down
In red ink they drown
And fear lies in back of their eyes
Cooper: ‘Acts of Terror’ Isn’t a Clear Slamdunk for Obama
CNN host Anderson Cooper said Tuesday night after the debate that, contrary to his claim during the debate, President Obama “wasn’t saying this was an act of terror.”
ANDERSON COOPER: Wolf, this whole the whole acts of terrorism thing, I don’t think it’s as clear a slam dunk as the Obama campaign would like it to be. In his speech, he wasn’t saying this was an act of terror. Previous to the paragraph where he said acts of terror, he’d been talking about 9/11 and obviously the killing of four Americans, he didn’t reference that video in particular, but I do think it’s open to debate. I can see why the Romney campaign is critical.
Cooper’s colleague and the debate moderator Candy Crowley said post-debate that Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” on the Libya issue, but chose the wrong word.
—
Deuce Wrote:
In tonight’s debate, Obama claimed that in the Rose Garden, he called the Benghazi assault on the US consulate a terroristic attack. Did he?
The answer is no, he did not. His comment was referring to 9/11 2001.
Obama called the assault of the consulate a “terrible act.” He did not call it a terrorist attack.
since the gop always agree to these corrupted forums, you have to assume they want things that way. they just can’t resist getting to play with the cool kids, if only to serve as jesters. pathetic.
Wretchard @5
“People forget most boxing matches. But they never forget the one where the referee hits a boxer over the head with a stool.”
This was a crucial debate pivot point. Clearly, Crowley was willing (eager?) to restrain Romney so Obama could pummel him unimpeded, and Obama gleefully accepted the “assist.”
The takeaway? The fight was rigged, yet Obama STILL couldn’t land a KO, which makes him look weak. In contrast, Romney kept his cool, stayed on his feet and finished the fight, which makes him look tough and resilient.
Even viewers who have no grasp of the Benghazi cover-up and its implications can and will remember the moment when the ref hit Romney over the head with a stool. Crowley’s foul play may serve to tip more voters Romney’s way.
Interesting for Anderson to turn so quickly…but he is right. It is extremely questionable as to whether or not he is even referencing the Consulate attack in the “acts of Terror” portion of the Rose Garden speech.
It is amazing that Obama would try to claim, on National TV, that he declared this a Terrorist Attack the day after it occured. Talk about ‘playing politics’. Romney has a week to prepare a rebuttal to this comment. I have confidence he will hit hard with this.
It’s too late for this debate, and may be too late for next week’s, but here’s what they need to do in the future:
The moderator should not get paid until after the debate. If either party can point to a clear violation of the written mutually-agreed rules for the debate, the moderator doesn’t get paid – at all. (No half-pay if one party is happy. No pay at all unless both parties are happy.)
Whether they should have some prearranged rules for binding arbitration, or whether either party should be able to say “Too bad, you violated the rules, we aren’t going to pay unless you sue and a court backs you up” is hard to say. I prefer the latter. Presumably, parties would only refuse to pay and risk a lawsuit if the violations of the agreement were egregious, but they certainly were in this case.
We are watching an entire system of Leftist thought, and its Wasington-Media-Academic axis, lose legitimacy almost by the hour, right in front of our faces. It’s odd to watch the national figures keep going through the same old motions, as if the spell was not already broken.
I can’t agree. That system of thought has captured a frighteningly large cohort of folks who think that they’re smart and good critical thinkers. Every utterance of one of that class is laced with code words and phrases which by their rules are unchallengeable, and signify unity with the clan. Compare them, for example, with the writing and diction of Abraham Lincoln, who was clear and direct in a strikingly different employment of public English. Were Obama debating Lincoln today, he’d reflexively call him a liar – in semi-cloaked phrases, of course – as he did Romney last night, after practically every one of Romney’s assertions, offering zero evidence each time of any falsehood.
is @ 34: he’d reflexively call him a liar – in semi-cloaked phrases, of course – as he did Romney last night, after practically every one of Romney’s assertions, offering zero evidence each time of any falsehood.
Two things, first the lying by the Democrats, and second the accusation by the Democrats that the Republicans are lying in any disagreement (or really in ALL cases), is really right off the charts, for anything short of pure Alinskyite or Stalinist/fascist practices. And double off the charts for an American presidential election. It makes the whole thing surreal, for us hidebound linear thinkers.
It is obviously a “sophisticated” call by the top of the campaign. So, what’s wrong with it? It’s dishonest. It’s not constructive. It demonizes the opponent, destroying the entire political system. It prevents useful debate. It encourages the loons.
(the best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity)
–
A few more random thoughts on the debate.
So, how about that exchange on oil production? Who is right? Does Obambus have anything *resembling* facts on his side, or is it pure BS? Where is the MSM on that – they seem to be ignoring the issue, although that’s the point where they nearly dropped the mics and went for each other’s throats.
Both wives more magenta. Half the woman news babes wore magenta last night and this morning. Wassup with that?
Ryan gave a pretty good defense this morning on the Benghazi exchange at the debate, and on the issue itself.
And of course it’s highly amusing to see Obambus’ faux outrage that ANYBODY might think HIS REGIME would ever PLAY POLITICS with the death of an ambassador. Too bad Romney wasn’t ready to laugh like a Biden and roll on the floor as a reaction to that.
Finally the MSM this morning, or at least the CBS reports I’ve seen, have a full court push on to say that Obambus absolutely killed last night.
Anderson Cooper going rogue may mean something. Perhaps Obama doing nothing for 6 hours while his gay ambassador was trapped and then raped may cost him a core constituency. The Democratic Party is a coalition of mutually antagonistic special interest groups. Being bought off is nice to them. Sticking a great big thumb in the eye of Da Man is nicer. Being left out to hang dry and get murdered is a wake up call and no fun at all. It is the most vulnerable and marginal who need the cocoon of a safe law abiding and prosperous society to protect them. No matter how much they hate White Capitalist Patriarchs like Romney single women and gays do not want to live and die in Benghazi.
Regarding Obama’s outrage that anyone thought he did not care about “his” ambassador. Isn’t this the man who called the deaths “bumps in the road?”
I wish someone in GOP would point out fact US would not have had ambassadors in Libya at all if we hadn’t been “leading from behind”. I hope that comes up next week.
Also, as someone pointed out earlier, Fast and Furious is a legitimate foreign policy issue.
Re the Crowley matter, is it credible Crowley remembered a line from an obscure Rose Garden speech given over a month ago? It is clear to me Crowley was tipped as to Obama’s response to any question about Benghazi, and was given the relevant transcript. When the question arose and Romney began demolishing Obama’s answer, Obama interrupted and said, “Read the transcript,” and upon hearing the word ‘transcript’ Crowley did her trained seal act and backed Obama up.
Wretchard: People forget most boxing matches. But they never forget the one where the referee hits a boxer over the head with a stool. Her “correction” has become tomorrow’s story — and possibly the rest of the week’s.
kaba: Crowley took dead aim at Romney but inflicted a serious wound on Obama instead.
What makes the two of you so confident? I didn’t see the debate but looking through the MSM, where the vast majority still get their news – especially women voters – I don’t see much coverage of this. As far as most people will know Crowley corrected Romney and that’s that. Unless the story has legs only confirmed GOP voters will suspect she intervened on Obama’s side.
While I was watching the debate I looked at Obama when Romney was talking and his eyes looked like someone who was filled with absolute rage. Not sure if I was seeing this correctly. Anyone else?
I agree with Walt. The Rose Garden question was preplanned and seemed a nice thespian moment on the president’s part. Mr. Obama didn’t answer the question but had a “do go on” response. Rehearsed.
W: “You can’t fight authoritarianism on the premise that they will play “fair”. Fair is not in the rulebook. That’s just the way it is.”
4. Matt “we’re all too used to tip-toeing around the Left and its avatars.”
With respect, this acceptance and tip-toeing is why it has gotten out of hand. It needs to be called out, very loudly, each and every time and the offenders need to be forced to acknowledge the transgression. Once upon a time, the press did the calling out. That was before they decided they were too smart to leave events in the hands of ‘those people.’ The self-appointed elite know what is good for ‘those people.’ It can be stopped by cutting off the money that allows them to think themselves ‘elite.’ Take away the money and they are just another college graduate with an opinion. IMHO, the only way back is either states reasserting their sovereignty or taxpayer revolt and civil disobedience.
Biggest missed opportunity for me was after Obama repeated his “everyone playing by the same rules” schtick, Romney should have asked, “Then why were special interests given waivers for Obamacare?” I don’t think even Obama could spin that one for a win.
Delurking to ask: is their confirmation for Stevens being raped? Have not seen any such. Can someone provide cites?
“The moderator should not get paid until after the debate.”
I don’t see why we need a “journolist” to be moderator. The job is to
1) take questions from the Town Hall audience
2) enforce time limits
3) turn the mic over for rebuttal.
My 12 yr old can do that.
Well, it appears that Miss Crowley has either early onset Alzheimer’s or is an inveterate Obama media whore.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/333937.php
41. Mel
I agree with Walt. The Rose Garden question was preplanned and seemed a nice thespian moment on the president’s part. Mr. Obama didn’t answer the question but had a “do go on” response. Rehearsed.
As do I. That occurred to me last night a short while after the conclusion of the debate. Obama had a glaring “tell.” He looked down and smiled befoer the “transcript” remark. I think he and Crowley collaborated on that one.
The debate trap is the left skew the game in their favor. If you refuse to acquiesce you are accused of being afraid to debate your opponent. I don’t know why Fox News does not set up a debate with a blatantly neutral moderator and format and issue the same challenge – If you want to debate, let’s meet on neutral ground and let the truth tell the tale.
I just heard that in a poll taken right after the debate, of those people who believed that Obama had WON the debate, even 60% of THEM were of the opinion that Romney would be better for the economy than Obama.
K#40:
I have heard commenters who watched the debate very carefully say that it was very obvious that Obama nd Romney really did not like each other.
k @ 40: While I was watching the debate I looked at Obama when Romney was talking and his eyes looked like someone who was filled with absolute rage. Not sure if I was seeing this correctly. Anyone else?
To tell the truth, I just listened or barely gazed at the picture most of the time. Insofar as I looked at Obambus, there was an intensity there, some upset, some discomfort. Rage, you know, can only really be aimed at oneself.
This debate format was awful…town-hall meeting…no way. All Democrat theater, the audience as props with pre-programmed questions that Crowley must have vetted towards what liberals want to hear. The Benghazi exchange with the Crowley bailout for Obama was obvious even to the most naive member of the audience.
Rommney was persuasive, knowledgeable, in command of the facts and rightly focused on Obama’s record of failures and un fullfilled promises. Coincidentally, I received my absentee ballot (I’m overseas) yesterday in the afternoon, filled it out and put it in the return mail before the debate. I voted for the guillotine for most incumbents!
Ach, just heard Rush discuss the most blatant lie of all last night that I too managed to forget to rant about until now, when Obambus the race-bating pig said that the Arizona law allows (encourages?) the police to stop people who don’t look right just to check their papers.
The law never said that.
And of course then Obambus adds to that by suggesting Romney believes in that sort of racial profiling, too.
Lies on top of lies.
Where is the MSM?
I just looked up the Commission On Presidential Debates in the Wiki. Most of the names I didn’t know but did notice Alan Simpson and Caroline Kennedy. Whoever the Repubs are, they should be replaced, the Commission is doing a lousy job.
Anybody know who appoints them?
Well, what better role could you give to Senator Present? In fact, I think Obama would make an excellent moderator. Let him get up and (with his teleprompter) give an opening statement, then sit down and spend the next 90 minutes daydreaming about carrying the sand trap on the 14th with a fairway wood while the candidates go about debating each other.
Benghazi is a political dog turd for Barack Obama. He and Candy Crowley can try to mold it into a unicorn, but it remains a turd.
Maybe there ought to be one of those chess timers for the debate? You can use all of your time on the first question or spread it out. Your choice.
I agree with Walt.
Also, Mitt’s failure to go for the jugular may have been a pre-planned strategy.
winslow…
How many ways can I say it?
Mitt already has won the ‘thinking’ vote; the vote based upon facts and history.
To win the ‘emoting’ vote Mitt has to woo the single female.
Such wooing is impossible if Romney goes after pretty boy and harshes their mellow.
————
It’s very notable that Mitt HAS succeeded in this gambit by being inscrutably firm and logical.
The more that he acts like Daddy — instead of the teenage crush — the better the romance.
A frustrated Wan sends out beta-vibes that emoter-voters can sense.
Hence, the ‘exit polling’ of pivot voters is damning for the Wan.
I’d say that Mitt has picked up another 1%, nationally.
Any more Alpha mojo, and the boy-king is done.
Y’all thought the MSM was bad last night? FOX’s Hume was all furrowed brow about all the things Romney should have picked up on but didn’t and Charles Krauthammer spoke eloquently and then declared Obama the slight winner, “on points.”
On points? What about facts, Charles?
After 4 years of listening to Obama bin Sodden I know all the subjects he “meanders about” on last night and heard them all again last night, just for fun.
Romney kicked his a$$ all over the stage with facts, logic, earnestness, honesty and quite frankly, guts. Last night he showed Putin he’d better get some tall Cuban heels on his little man jack boots whenever they get together for some down and dirty.
I agree that Crowley and the Prez had that “terror” argument all worked out long before the debate. After watching Romney last night, I now know he can handle himself in the clinches. The disdain they have for each other was palpable, and the tweets filling the internet last night and today expressing plans to KILL Romney will not get one SS investigation. Know why? Because Obama “has only One Plan – One for himself and the rest of his thugs”.
probably need to look in on Whiskey get the beta alpha biz angle on the debate.
I did not know Erick Erickson was a contributor to CNN!
At Best a Fleeting Tie for Obama. The Reality is a Cancer on His Campaign
….Why the debate commission thought it a good idea to go to Long Island, NY to hear from undecided voters in an area not considered a swing state is really beyond me.
ndy Crowley should not have tried to referee the Libya answer as she moderated. Herding the cats was a difficult enough task. Interjecting on the Libya story made her part of the story in a way she should not have become. But for all the people heaping aspersions on her (full disclosure: I am a political contributor for CNN and have long thought the world of Candy Crowley even before I had a relationship with CNN), they should be thanking her. It was her interjection to clarify what was and was not said that muddied the water on what the President actually said.
The media, which has tried to move past the story as quickly as possible, is now going to have to go back and revisit what actually happened. As last night dragged on in the post debate analysis, the initial cursory “he did call it an act of terror” fact checking turned into “actually, he didn’t and it took him forever to do so” fact checking. It was not pretty. And it was a hell of a thing for Obama to accuse Romney of politicizing a cover up, then hide behind the rhetoric of greeting coffins as they returned home.
Within an hour of the debate being over, Candy Crowley herself acknowledged on CNN that “Mitt Romney was right in the main.”CNN and other networks then proceeded to point out all the times Obama Administration officials kept denying terrorism was responsible for what happened. The fact checkers had to explain just how wrong the President was and just how misleading he tried to be last night. This will continue in the lead up to the foreign policy debate.
Here’s a more important point: Barack Obama put himself solidly in the center as the man of responsibility. He actually refused to answer the undecided voter’s question about security for the Ambassador and, in dodging, put himself in conflict with the State Department. The magnitude of the lies, half-truths, and redirects continues to add up to a significant malignancy. And we have one more debate, solely on foreign policy, to go.
The muddied waters and detailed fact checking will hurt Barack Obama over the long haul. A tie, at best, in last night’s debate will slowly drain away — a fleeting moment in the fury of analysis over what did and did not happen regarding Benghazi.
There was another striking moment in the debate that should not be overshadowed by the Libyan issue.
An undecided voter who voted for Obama in 2008, asked Barack Obama why he should vote for Barack Obama now. Stunningly, Obama offered no new plans, no new proposals, and no new ideas. The voter clearly said he wasn’t impressed with the past four years, but that’s all Obama had to offer. Then Romney countered. It was a magical moment of fact telling, just hitting the low notes of Barack Obama’s record. Obama clearly wanted to respond, but he could not. There was no time.
As I said after the first debate, you don’t win, you lose them. Neither of them really lost, so Obama didn’t win and won’t get anything out of it.
The Libya thing is interesting. Obama is very convincing, almost mesmerizing when he stands up on his hind legs and makes a pronouncement. Last night he did, saying that he knows these folks, he takes it personally, he recognized it for what it was. Great moment. The only problem is that he did exactly the same thing, made a pronouncement in full seriousness and eloquence, two weeks ago saying exactly the opposite. No one paying the least bit of attention would have missed that this was about a movie someone didn’t like. Now its terrorism and he made that clear two weeks ago. Uh, just a sec.
There has been a very interesting and disconcerting pattern during the Obama administration, disconcerting for him and those who want to get him re elected. The more he talks, the less people listen and like what he says. His popularity soared when he shut up and did something else; when he came out to sell something his numbers dropped.
He needed to re-establish his aura last night, because when it comes to policy and what he says, he frankly sucks. He didn’t. The assumptions of the media is that he is winning. He isn’t. He is falling behind.
I’d almost wager that the NRA comment near the end, snarky and disdainful, will move the needle in Pennsylvania.
Good GOD, this forum is the most amazing place! I keep getting stretch-marks on my poor little brain trying to wrap it around these BIG THOUGHTS, all expressed in logic of glacial inevitability.
If Obama wins, will they let us keep on posting with our iPads in the open-air camps?
Why do the Republicans agree to biased “moderators” and terrible formats? Could it be because the President would only have one debate if the formats were not stacked? And they agreed because they didn’t yet have faith in Romney’s ability to hold the ground?
My suggestion: TWO moderators — one chosen by each party — and six 15 minute segments, alternatively chaired by each monitor — with the topics for each segment known in advance. For example, taxes, energy, unemployment, military, foreign policy. Have the moderators limited to time keeping.
If the Republicans keep agreeing to crooked referees and slanted formats, they and the country will deserve to lose.
Re: #24 geoffgo
There were two places attacked in Benghazi. The consulate where the ambassador and one other man died and where there were 6 people. The other attack which came after the first and was at what was called the “annex” where there were around 40 people and it came under an attack which included mortar fire which killed two men there. The annex was 2 kilometers, by road, away from the consulate and was where the surviving consulate people retreated to when the left there.
Fiddler: Check Out this Depiction of the Candywoman
…it’ll shrink your brain, or at least some part of your anatomy right back down.
—
A Caller to the Dennis Miller Show (hosted by Larry O’Connor as Dennis is on the road w/Mitt) cited Creepy Crawley as looking like Chris Farley dressed up for a skit, which sadly I never saw.
It would have been entertaining though, if she had tripped and smashed up some furniture, Farley Style.
O’Connor bemoaned an excess of boxing analogies in the post debate commentary, and said that the audience should come up with a better name than “Mitt Romney” to best the pugilistic-sounding “Barrack Hussein Obama”
Some of their suggestions, so far:
The Stormin Morman
The Morman Mauler
The Morman George Foreman –
…Selling the Stormin Morman Grill, of Course
Mitt the Pit Bull Romney
What I saw was not the “President in cahoots with the moderator”, but the President starting to get emotionally agitated, barking commands at the moderator (Mr. Fernandez, your dry listing of the transcript does not convey this), with the President bullying the moderator “Get the transcript! What does it say!” “Yes, Mr. President, it says ‘terrorism’” “Yes? Say it louder!”
What is the response of the Secret Service if the President escalates a confrontation? I am thinking the moderator was trying to defuse the situation so she didn’t end up on the floor with 3 Secret Service people on top of her? The fact that she kinda halfway apologized to Mr. Romney pretty much confirms this scenario.
It’s one thing to know going in that the moderator is going to do all she can to help the Democrat.
It’s another that it always, inevitably, without fail catches the Republican by gaping, flat-footed surprise.
What is so damn hard about looking at the moderator and stating, “It is not your role as moderator to take sides in this debate. You’ve been telling me when I’m out of line; now I’m telling you: you’re out of line.”
I know the GOP is the stupid party. But do they always have to be unprepared for what everyone else in the world knows going in is a flat-out certainty?
The big story here is that Crowley and Obama set up an elaborate ambush for Mitt Romney. He told a lie and actually dared an incredulous Romney to challenge him. (Please proceed, governor.) Romney wasn’t the slightest bit afraid, and deliberately walked right into the prepared attack. Then an amazing thing happened. Obama blinked and Romney won. Obama told Crowley, “Get the transcript”, and the camera clearly showed that Crowley was holding a copy of the transcript. Obama got so excited that he forgot that he wasn’t supposed to know that Crowley would have a transcript of the Rose Garden speech on her desk. How could he possibly have know that other than overt collusion? Crowley then realizes that Obama has blown the whole thing, immediately puts down the transcript and covers his ass by finishing Obama’s part of the ambush herself. Obama can’t keep his mouth shut and interjects, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”, like a little boy hiding behind his mother, saying “You tell him, mom.” Romney never backs down one inch for one second, shows no fear, and is utterly vindicated in the days following the debate. Everybody knows exactly what happened there, and the best sign of just how badly the ambush failed and how Romney dominated Obama is the “binders full of women” meme being circulated around the leftie blogs — They are furiously amusing and distracting themselves from an utterly failed debate ambush. And Romney rises in the polls as Obama’s credibility withers away.
Mitt Romney is handling the press perfectly. He shows them up as corrupt fools and they can’t lay a hand on him. The closer Obama ties himself to the press, the more of a corrupt fool he looks like himself. Don’t complain about the collusion and bias. Make it bright, clear and obvious to the public just who is playing them for fools. And make them sick and tired of it.
For Mitt Romney to have gone this far without taking his campaign negative the way everyone seems to want him to takes nerves of steel. He’s showing unbelievable confidence and skill and will make a formidable President.
Cicero on traitors. . . .
Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote:
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.
“An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
“For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
“He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
“A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
—
Does anyone remember what happened in the John Kerry/George Bush campaign? when someone at ABC leaked an email from the head of their political propaganda division ordering the “reporters” to let Kerry off easy in questioning, but really go after Bush and the Republicans?
It was so brazen that it should have been a huge scandal. SHOULD have been, but alas, we live in a nation held hostage by Quislings.
Obama delenda est.
From my Culture Wars file, here is a gem by the brilliant art critic and man of letters Hilton Kramer (whom I had the very great pleasure of hearing in person many years ago). He puts his finger on the very quality that has baffled so many of us about the Left.
Hilton Kramer on Communists
“It is in the nature of Stalinism for its adherents to make a certain kind of lying — and not only to others, but first of all to themselves — a fundamental part of their lives. It is always a mistake to assume that Stalinists do not know the truth about the political reality they espouse. If they don’t know the truth (or all of it) one day, they know it the next, and it makes absolutely no difference to them politically.
“For their loyalty is to something other than the truth. And no historical enormity is so great, no personal humiliation or betrayal so extreme, no crime so heinous, that it cannot be assimilated into the ‘ideals’ that govern the true Stalinist mind, which is impervious alike to documentary evidence and moral discrimination.”
“. . . Was Josie Herbst a true Stalinist? Despite all the reservations and criticisms she voiced in private and despite her many disagreements with the Communist Party and its policies, I think it must be said that for the most part she was. That wasn’t all she was, of course, but in a large part of her mind for an important part of her life she was, all the same.
“The slaughter of the peasants in Stalin’s collectivization campaign, the Moscow trials, the Great Terror and the Hitler-Stalin pact, not to mention a great many later developments in the post-World War II period — however much she may have suffered over them, she nonetheless swallowed them. There was a lot she choked on, but in the end she swallowed it all. Which is why she remained ‘loyal’ in the Hiss case, and in many lesser causes as well.
“Whatever she disapproved or regretted or even disavowed — Miss Langer cites many instances, and I could describe others — was always done privately, and never where it would make any difference, and always subsumed under the comforting and exonerating rubric of ‘What went wrong?’ There was never an acknowledgement — even privately, as far as I know — that it was the whole political outlook that was wrong. There was no conception of how evil it all was.
“It was the process of brutalization that resulted from all this, I believe, that first confused and then immobilized her as a writer once the audience ready to embrace radical certainties evaporated from the literary scene in the Forties.”
–from an essay on Josephine Herbst
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Who-was-Josephine-Herbst—6735
Kramer was, of course, hated by the Left, especially the schlock “artists” and poseurs who infest the Whitney Biennial shows, etc. They called him a reactionary, but he was a passionate lover of Abstract Expressionism, and one of the most cultured men of the twentieth century. His essays were a feast for the mind. (Remember that word? “cultured”? we used to aspire to it.)
67. Reformed Trombonist:
Because Mitt knows better about what works and what doesn’t than you think you do.
…look at the Polls!