September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« At least it didn't say Dear John | Main | Open face sand wedge »

Oct 17, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Gotcha! fail on Libya?


I was wondering about that too, PF.

Crowley interrupted the point that Romney was trying to make. Why did the president use the term "act of terror" and then spend the next two weeks blaming it on a "spontaneous demonstration"?

The media is predictably spinning this exchange dishonestly.


Three more weeks until this pissing contest ends.

clarence swinney

Wants to cut taxes---35% to 28%--eliminate Estate Tax-- where one family owns as much Wealth as 90% of families—keep capital gains at 15%--where 25 Hedge Fund Managers made 22 Billion in 2010
and paid the low 15% and less than 1% or zero in Payroll tax—offset revenue loss by closing loopholes
Ha. Each loophole has proponents to fight for them—Increase military spending biggest waster of all—Our armies in 800 bases worldwide. We pursue bad trade agreements that allow unrestricted access to our markets. We cannot compete with $1 labor so watch our factories closing. 58,000 closed in last decade.

We must demand better self serving policies. Tariffs on imports. High tax rate to pay down that horrid debt like 1945-1980 tax rates and tax on estates. The Middle Class has been hurt badly with loss of good paying jobs with benefits. Protect our safety nets which have served us well for over half a Century.

Mitt is a rich mans candidate no spin can deny it. He will cut taxes for his rich pals and shred safety nets.
This Man scares me very much. I do no trust his motives

formerly gt

I liked Romney in the debate in part because I support him and his policies.

People who liked Obama probably liked his performance. Although the president didn't appear particularly well prepared and looked the less Presidential of the pair.

But, how did it play with people that were truly undecided and may vote for either party depending upon the election?

My guess is that Romney fared better than the President. People are tired of high unemployment, high gas prices, and the poor economy. Romney is not the bogeyman the MSM and the Obama campaign tried to make him out to be.


"Crowley interrupted the point that Romney was trying to make."

Mercifully. All Romney had to do was point out that the Benghazi mission was left unprotected. But he had to go for the bankshot "Obama's losing the war on terror" gibberish.


I doubt it will be referenced as anything but a "Gotch! fail" by Democrats.

==Did Obama reference Terrorism in the Rose Garden? Yes.

==Did Obama make the claim that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack the day after the attack while speaking in the Rose Garden? No.

==Did Obama and the Obama administration subsequently mislead America for 2 or 3 weeks by claiming the death of Stevens was the result of a youtube Movie? Yes.

==Did Obama claim at the debate that he said the attack was the result of terrorism while also claiming that the investigation is under way? Yes.

==Did Obama mislead America in this regard at the debate? Yes. He lied.

==Did Romney rightfully attack him with this Gotcha!? Yes.

==Did Crowley lie to cover for Obama misleading America during the debate? Yes.

==Did Obama benefit from Crowley's lie? Yes.

Best to call it a "Gotcha! fail", not look too close and move along as quickly as possible. Unfortunately for Obama even that draws attention to an issue the media has been feverishly attempting to ignore for weeks.

Fun to watch.


Are voters following the rightwing blog chain of non-sequiturs? No.

This was a chip shot, and Romney turned it into a 200-yard slice.

Are voters following the rightwing blog chain of non-sequiturs? No.

They don't need to.

Some lies are too big to swallow even with Crowley lubing them for Obama. It is for this simple reason that both the CNN and FOX pools of moderate voters came away with an undisputed Romney win.


Then why do you have your binders in a bunch?


MSNBC, not CNN. Sorry.

--Binders in a bunch...

It would have been nice had Romney not deferred to the moderator. Romney missed the opportunity for both an Obama Gotcha! and Gingrich vs. the press moment.

As it is we are forced to settle for the Obama Gotcha!.

formerly gt

Meh. Foreign Policy is debate #3.

All Obama can say in that debate is:

I killed Osama. I'm tough on turror.
We're out of Iraq. (never mind that we wnated to stay and that we would have stayed if Biden had been able to negotiate the right terms, but we're out.)
We're out of Afghanistan in 2014. Definitely. (Well probably)
Trust us on Iran's nukes. (Although the admin botched the simple job of embassy security on 9/11, they have this one under control.)

He cannot say that he made any progress towards an israeli/palestinian peace accord. In fact, the situation is worse.
He cannot say that Egypt is better off and that relations are as strong as ever.
He cannot say that he's de-armed the DPRK.
He cannot say that relations with Russia are better.
he can say he sent arms to drug dealers in mexico.

Like the economy, his focus won't be on what he has done, it will be to make people think Romney is dangerous. Romney will get us into a war in Iran. Romney will destabilize the ME. Romney will get us into an arms race with Russia. Romney wants a 1950's military and not a 21st century military. and so on.


*All* Obama can say is that he killed Osama, the Iraq war ended, we're getting out of Afghanistan. Yeah, those three things alone are not enough. Any idea how tiny this makes you sound?

Number one by itself would be worth the price of admission for a 2nd term for the right if this was GW we were talking about. Since it's the "Libtard" President those three MAJOR achievements are nothing. Nada, Zip.

Got it.


What are Romneys foreign policy achievements again? Besides talking to Jesus on Kolob and having offshore accounts.

formerly gt


Afghanistan a major success? Puh-lease. Obama surged. We lost more lives. spent a lot more money. didn't gain a damn thing.

Iraq was set for him when he came into office. he failed to achieve an agreement to keep a US presence in the country.

yes. Osama is dead. Apparently Obama thought that meant the end of al qaeda. So, he didn't even deploy a security team to guard the consulate in an unstable and unsafe country on 9.11. And, he's been covering up his failure ever since.

The US is less secure than we were 4 years ago. We're no more respected than we were 4 years ago. How does that equal success?



What are Romneys foreign policy achievements again?

Romney, a challenger, breaks even in a debate on foreign policy with a with the President ... our globe trotting press mugging President.


For any challenger to come out even against any sitting president ...

Bill Yaner

When I think of Romney and foreign policy I think of his puzzling and amateurish visits to the UK and Israel this year, which had to be a terrible time for the poor dear.

So at this critical juncture in world events, we should put a rookie on the mound who has yet to put a pitch into the strike zone and.......hope for the best?

formerly gt

"So at this critical juncture in world events, we should put a rookie on the mound"

You do realize that the sum of Obama's FP experience 4 years ago was living in indonesia as a child and traveling as a young adult - right?

as president he's damaged relations with both egypt and israel. that's quite a feat. he's also been rebuffed by the russians on iran and DPRK on disarming.

as for Romney, one of the things he'll soon have on his résumé is sending a half-Kenyan community organizer packing. ah. good times.


I thought it was odd that Obama requested a transcript at all, but it seemed plausible that he was asking for the minutes of the debate. Could it have been possible that he was asking Crowley to verify a specific utterance out of all that Obama has said over the past four years?

Either Obama asking Crowley to reread a random utterance or he did not realize he had just claimed that he had been calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack since day one.

Either way I was surprised when Crowley replied with a reference to the Rose Garden. What a pump-monkey.

Andrew Brod


Well, whatever it means, Frog just illustrated my test of who won the debate. After the first presidential debate, the Democrats were complaining about the moderator. After the VP debate and last night's presidential rematch, the Republicans were the ones doing the complaining. Therefore, I score it Dems 2-1.

formerly gt

"Therefore, I score it Dems 2-1."

score it however you please. but Obama's presidency has entered its final phase.

the only question that remains is how he's going to react to the loss.

i expect he'll take it better than most of the cone heads.


64.8% looks a hell of a lot better than 35.2%.

Bill Yaner

Well yes, formerly gt, the sum of President Obama's experience four years ago was pretty much equal to Romney's experience today. But alas, those four years make all the difference, do they not?

Andrew Brod

Mojo's citing the forecast. It's tightened up dramatically since the first presidential debate, with the model's probability of an Obama win in the electoral college falling more than 20 percentage points. What once seemed like a lock for Obama is now anything but. Even so, I'd rather be the 64.8% (Obama) than the 35.2% (Romney).

And we'll see if Romney's bounce is spent after two straight debate losses (albeit narrow ones). My guess is that when the next round of polls come out, we'll see that Obama stanched the bleeding last night. Will he start building his lead back up again? We'll see.


"Obama's presidency has enter it's final phase."

Sure, if you measure "phases " in years.



After the first presidential debate, the Democrats were complaining about the moderator. After the VP debate and last night's presidential rematch, the Republicans were the ones doing the complaining. Therefore, I score it Dems 2-1.

Not surprisingly I take different view. I believe the difference between liking one debate and disliking another falls along deeper faults than winning or losing.

Debate one represented a fair debate in which the candidates debated on their own merits. Liberals didn't like this. It's too messy ... too deregulated.

Debates two and three, however, appealed to the liberal desire to control outcome and in the context of debates 2 and 3 that control comes in the form of moderator influence, even outright dishonest assists. Debates 2 and 3 were ... regulated.

That is the America liberals like. Outcome based, an America in which individual merit is subjugated to a controlling authority that levels the playing field, an America that defers to fairness rather than meritocracy. In short, liberals like their debates regulated and only then presented to the voter.

Liberals want this so much they are willing to accept the new lie, "insta-fact-checked" by Crowley, that Obama has said from day one said that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack.

We all know he didn't.

Meh... it's all good as long as the debates are regulated and presented, lies are simply truths of a different sort.


The consulate was overrun, therefore the security force wasn't large enough.

How large should it have been? Use actual numbers.
How should they have been armed? Machine guns, flamethrowers, tanks?
Would they have been allowed to actually shoot people? When?


"We all know he didn't."

Actually he did. Stop mis-representing facts.

Andrew Brod

Obama's probability at ticked up today to 65.7%.

What I find interesting about Nate Silver's numbers is that his forecast of the probability is now higher than his "now-cast." For months the two were reversed, which implied that Obama's chances were better (according to Silver's model) when the economy wasn't factored in. Obama's polling was stronger than the economy. Now that's reversed, though the two numbers are close (though they necessarily get closer as the election nears), implying that the economy is a (slightly) stronger factor for Obama than his polling numbers.

Again, we'll see if he gets any kind of bounce from the last two debates. He may not, given that his win was less decisive than Romney's was two weeks ago.


"Actually he did. Stop mis-representing facts."

Translation: "The sky is GREEN, not blue!"

Try understanding what the facts actually are in this case, rather than trying to make them fit a meme that blows off responsibility for the Obama Administrations' incompetency.



Actually he did. Stop mis-representing facts.

Provide the quote.


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

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

In no place did Obama in the Rose Garden call the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. What he did do was attempt to define it as a response to a youtube video for weeks.


Obama said he called the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack at the debate. He lied in an attempt to mislead the nation.

Crowley said at the debate that Obama called the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack in the rose garden. She lied.

You said above Obama called the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden. You lie.

Lying liberals all.

formerly gt

"Obama's probability at ticked up today to 65.7%."


do you think there's any of the Jesse Helms effect in the polling about obama?

Andrew Brod

Do you mean that poll respondents might be more likely to report a preference for Obama because they want to come off to the pollster as open-minded or racially tolerant or something? I don't know if that's happening. But I don't think we saw it in 2008. Or did we? Did Obama poll better than he did in the election? If it didn't happen four years ago, I doubt it's happening now.

CP (worst person on the internet)

Is GED, or anyone else seriously making the case that the truth about the Obama Administration's response to the Libya incident was served by Crowley's interjection, distortion and stifling of further discussion? Mind-boggling for anyone with the capacity to reason, considering the factual timeline of events. See in particular Obama's comments on Letterman, the relevant portions of which have mysteriously all but vanished from the internet:

An American real estate developer releases on YouTube a 13-minute trailer for The Real Life of Muhammed, an anti-Islam video.

Sept. 10:
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri appears on an Internet video calling for Libyans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, his Libyan deputy, killed in a drone strike in June.

Sept 11:
Egyptians attack the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, raising the flag of al-Qaeda in place of the U.S. flag. The embassy releases a statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims," in reference to the U.S. video.
News reports say the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has been attacked.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney releases a statement embargoed for midnight condemning the attacks and criticizing the Obama administration for blaming the American filmmaker instead of the attackers.
The White House repudiates the original U.S. Embassy statement, saying it was released without proper approval. The Obama campaign attacks Romney for issuing his statement before an investigation is complete.

Sept 12:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemns "this senseless act of violence," saying some have sought to justify the attack and protests "as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
President Obama says in a Rose Garden statement that an investigation is underway. He condemns the attackers and in an allusion to the video he says the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but all must oppose such senseless violence against public servants. He also, near the conclusion of his remarks, says: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”

U.S. intelligence agencies conclude internally that the incident was a planned terror attack likely by al-Qaeda affiliates on the embassy in order to release resources to respond, according to reports from several news media outlets.
Republican members of Congress say they are have been told by intelligence officials that the Benghazi attack was a well-planned assault timed to the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, not an anti-video protest gone awry.

Sept. 13:
Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for the State Department, which oversees embassies, says State had evaluated the "threat stream" in Libya prior to the attack, "and we determined that the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew."
Clinton issues a statement saying, "There is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence."
White House spokesman Jay Carney insists: "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie."

Sept. 14:
The bodies of Stevens and three Americans arrive at Andrews Air Force base. Obama says at the base that the United States will "stand fast" against the violence, Both he and Clinton criticize the video for prompting the attacks. "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with," Clinton said.
Press Secretary Jay Carney denies the White House was aware of "any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent." "The story is absolutely wrong," he says. "That report is false."

Sept. 16:
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talks shows and says the attacks were spontaneous eruptions over the anti-Islam video, saying, "This was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack."
President of Libya's general National Congress Mohammed Magarief contradicts the Obama administration, saying there is "no doubt that this (attack) was pre-planned, predetermined."
Sept. 18:
Obama on The Late Show with David Letterman and is asked by the host if the attack was an act of war:
“Here’s what happened: You had a video released by someone who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammad and Islam, and making fun of the prophet Mohammad. This caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. What also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one in Libya. These extremists do not represent what the people think. And as offensive as this video was, we denounced it, and the US Government had nothing to do with it, that’s never an excuse for violence… What I’ve been trying to do over the last 4 years, is to say, we can narrowly target those folks who would try to do violence against us or our homeland, and Al Qeada has been decimated because of this strategy.”

September 18 - Jay Carney:
"Our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped -- that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere."

Sept. 19:
The first U.S. administration official to testify on the matter, Director of National Intelligence Matthew Olsen, says the Americans in Benghazi were killed "in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."

Sept. 20:
In an interview at Univision Town Hall, Obama is asked whether the attack was the work of terrorists. He says his administration is still investigating the attack and cannot say for certain. "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," Obama says.

Sept. 21:
Clinton says at a meeting with Pakistan's foreign minister that, "What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."

Sept. 25:
Obama on The View, in which Obama is asked about Clinton's statement. "We don't have all of the information yet so we are still gathering," he says. He says there is "no doubt" that "it wasn't just a mob action."
"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests," he says.
In a speech to the United Nations, Obama condemns the attacks and the American filmmaker, saying, "A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."

Sept. 27:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says, "I think it pretty clearly was a terrorist attack."

Oct. 10:
Senior State Department officials admit in a background briefing with reporters that prior to the attack in Benghazi there was no protest outside the compound. The briefing contradicts initial White House statements that the attack came during a demonstration.


Since Nate Silver does all sorts of statistical voodoo (meant in a complimentary "I can't understand all of that r-square, ANOVA, Chi-square stuff") in aggregating polls and running regression analysis on them, I doubt that any Jesse Helms effect would have any statistical relevance whatsoever in the poll outcome.

Dream up all the fantasy occurrence you want, but it's probably not happening.


I heard this reporter on the radio the other day. He gave a very thorough account of what happened in Bengahzi. It seems mistakes were made on both sides in describing what happened.

There was no protest, but...

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


A video summery of the-worst-person-on-the-internet's comment.

Obvious lies don't play well. 52-45 Romney

formerly gt

After 2 straight debate "victories" rcp shows Romney ahead in the electoral college for the first time.

Mojo exclaims "inconceivable" and runs to 538. He doesn't really get what Nate says, but he still likes the pictures. Although he liked them better a month ago...


‎Bill Clinton, on behalf of Mitt Romney:
"It is true we're not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man who said in the debate, I had so much hope four years ago and I don't now, I thought he was going to cry. Because he knows that it's not fixed."


And then, we have this to consider:

"It is uncharacteristic of Team Obama to concede any terrain, but Plouffe offered no such assurances about Obama’s position in North Carolina, Virginia, or Florida. Romney advisers have seen big gains in all three states and now consider wins likely, although not guaranteed, in all three. They are similarly upbeat about prospects in Colorado but not confident enough to predict victory. That Plouffe left Colorado off his list of states where Obama’s leading and can withstand a Romney surge might be telling…"

Fred Gregory

Reports of a Tsunamni are not exaggerated. Come on trolls , spin the latest Gallup.

Progressive Orlando Sentinel Endorses Romney

"On the heels of Wednesday's endorsement of Mitt Romney by the traditionally liberal Nashville Tennessean, another longtime left-leaning newspaper-- the Orlando Sentinel -- has also endorsed President Barack Obama's Republican challenger. The Sentinel's endorsement will have a greater impact, since it comes from one of the largest newspapers in the key swing state of Florida.
Like the Tennessean, the Sentinel expressed strong disappointment in Obama's record of performance"

Bearthlessly awaiting then predictable N&R endorsement. Or will they surprise us. Not taking bets.

Andrew Brod

I won't try to spin the latest result from the Gallup tracker. It is what it is. But I will note that Gallup's likely-voter tracking poll is known to be erratic, and reminiscent of Mark Twain's view of New England weather: If you don't like one day's poll results, come back in a week and they'll probably be different.

Could there be a "tsunami" developing in Romney's direction? Maybe, but you probably shouldn't base your answer on Gallup.

formerly gt

" breathlessly awaiting then predictable N&R endorsement. Or will they surprise us. Not taking bets. "

Last GOP endorsement in '84 or '72?

formerly gt

The unreliable and biased Rasmussen* shows Romney up 3 in Va. This squares with what I'm hearing from neighbors. Obama lost a lot of support in my area when he came out pro homosexual marriage.

*According to Nate the Great. According to a Poly Sci Prof at Fordham, he was the most accurate pollster for the 2008 cycle. But you know how academicians are.

Andrew Brod

"Biased and inaccurate" is what Silver said in 2010, and it was accurate. Rasmussen did quite badly for the midterm elections. But yes, Rasmussen was at the top of the ratings in 2008. And it did pretty well in 2004.

This year, Silver has identified a pro-Romney "house effect" in Rasmussen's results. It's possible that the Rasmussen "bias" will be vindicated in 2 1/2 weeks, but so far the pollster is consistently more pro-Romney than other polls, and what Silver's research has found is that polls that disagree significantly with the consensus tend to be proven wrong in November.


Why does Silver get this level of attention?

Andrew Brod

He knows what he's doing. Many people value that.

formerly gt

""Biased and inaccurate" is what Silver said in 2010"

Let me see if I understand this. Nate is really good at statistical modeling and forecasting. And, he's applied his models to diverse areas.

Additionally, Nate is really, really good at saying whose forecast was the best after the election.

In 2008, Rasmussen was good. He showed that in 2010 Rasmussen was not good. He thinks he's identified bias in Rasmussen in 2012. But we won't know if he's correct until after the election.

As Nate says, Presidential elections occur only every 4 years, so it's challenging to get the data needed to refine and improve his models.

Forecasts are subject to change. Obama's chances looked better on Oct. 1 than they do now.

This will all be over by Nov. 7. or at least by Dec 7. - right?

Andrew Brod

I don't recall Silver claiming that it takes great skill to note after the election which polls did the best. At that point it's just arithmetic; anyone can do it. It's like figuring which team beat the spread.

formerly gt

"I don't recall Silver claiming that it takes great skill to note after the election which polls did the best."

Is my sarcasm detector broken or is yours?

The comments to this entry are closed.