The Presidential Debates Have Devolved Into Liberal Controlled And Hyped Media Events

Loading

We had our debate last night, and as was expected, Crowley made her partisan views and bias a significant factor in the debate: if you deny this obvious fact, you suffer from willful ignorance or you are so lost in your bias your sanity might be in question.

Crowley let it be known, before the debate, she planned to inject her influence into the debate; after all, she has a superior intellect and is a member of the elite cadre of media engaged in the reelection of Obama. How could anyone expect or ask that she be a neutral moderator, with such superior talent, she needs to be an active participant and personality within the debate. Who knew the debate, between men vying for the most powerful position in the world, required the participation of an obvious shill for Obama to clap for Obama and allow him extra time to make crucial points because they are “important.”

When the “approved questions by undecided voters, who show up decided, and then ask questions like “how are you different from Bush” the debate has ceased to be a debate and has become a Liberal media event. Forget the fact that Michelle Obama is allowed to break the rules and lead the questioners and Crowley in applause, the debate has lost its validity. The moderators have reduced the debates from important historical meetings that allow the public to view the candidates under stress competing against each other, to the level of another Liberal hosted talk show on the alphabet networks. Allowing Obama to interrupt with impunity and talk over Romney was only one of many examples of the debate taking on the appearance of a Liberal media event; this ruins the spirit of a legitimate debate. We deserve better.

The question of President Obama’s reluctance to use the word terror in reference to Islamic Fundamentalists is well known and has brought into question the dubious nature of his loyalties. In the Rose Garden speech on September 12, 20120, Obama used the word terror once near the conclusion of his speech:

“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.”

To those of us who study the often convoluted and purposely vague speeches of politicians and Obama in particular, such a generic statement regarding terror toward the end of a speech seems to reply to terror in general; but Crowley felt the obligation, as an Obama Bootlicker, to interject herself and correct Romney, based solely on her personal assumption and interpretation of this vague reference to terror. Whether the president meant to apply the term terror to Benghazi will be a matter of conjecture, but at best the president is guilty of being vague and indirect in designating Benghazi an act of terror, if indeed, he meant Benghazi to be considered an act of terror. Yet, Crowley, with her superior intellect, has said, “yes” that is what he was saying, and the Liberal world is commending her for her rudeness and pretension.

A computer with a timer could be used more effectively and without the shameless bias that America is expected to accept as “normal;” unless, the computer is programmed with this same devious propensity of Liberals towards cheating.

If the tables were reversed and the deck was stacked against a Democrat, the hue and cry of unfairness would be unceasing; yet, the hypocrisy to even admit the obvious bias of a moderator helping a debater who wanders off course or needs help with extra time is insignificant.

The debates are nothing more than a spectacle, designed for Romney to be handicapped and to allow Obama a chance to reassert himself in the race. Still the question remains and begs to be asked: if Liberals are content to cheat and be comfortable with the mantle of corruption associated with cheating, where may we assume they draw the line. In other words, if cheating is second nature to the Liberal, how far are they prepared to go in this corruption of cheating. Do they provide Obama with the question crib sheets so that he is more well prepared?

Yes, he showed remarkable improvement from the last debate are we to assume he gained a mastery of these specific topics in a few days, when he sounded like a blithering dolt during the last debate. The Liberals are asking us to believe in their sense of honesty and integrity, but like the drunk whore in church, the hypocrisy is more than obvious as is their tendency to use whatever means necessary to gain the upper hand.

Like a trained seal, the neutral moderator is clapping for her hero
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
167 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I read the postings on the open thread posting. Do you think Greg or Larry will acknowledge that after the “debate”, Ms. Crowley admitted that Romney was more correct in his statements than was Obama? I doubt it.

Greg is probably still in euphoria, thinking Obama “cleaned Romney’s clock”. Even after post-debate fact-checking and discussion shows Obama lying through his teeth practically every time he opened his mouth.

I found it amusing that on nearly every individual topic “discussed” at the “debate”, that CNN showed their polling as Romney getting the better of Obama, even as their general polling on who “won” the “debate” favored Obama. Biased?

One wonders if the kool-aid being drunk by the Obama supporters will ever run out.

Perhaps Nan would like to weigh in on the fallacious nature of your first statement—as she is so willing to do whenever a liberal/progressive makes a statement with which she disagrees.

Actually, I agree, they could have used the computers more advantageously: They could have been used to fact-check statements immediately, during the debate.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/17/1030581/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-31-myths-in-41-minutes/

As much as candy cow tried, the American people or most of them realize what was happening. As I have said before, the media is so far up barry’s butt they will need a flashlight to get out. I can’t wait until after the election when Romney is pronounced the winner. They will be weeping and crying down their legs. If they love barry so much they can follow him to war torn Chicago.

I would be embarrassed to call myself a journalist. geesch I don’t even think that term exists anymore because they do not report the news, they make it up as they go along.

The classics often speak to me…

@Liberal1 (Objectivity):

Actually, I agree, they could have used the computers more advantageously: They could have been used to fact-check statements immediately, during the debate.

Agree, Lib1. But I certainly wouldn’t use your source for “fact-checking”. Not only did they get a majority of “fact-checks” wrong, to the point of blatantly lying about them, but when they don’t offer any “fact-checks” of Obama’s words, then you know that site is pure bias. And you like to call yourself “objective”. What a laugher, Lib1.

Hell, number 23 on that list was shown to be more truthful for Romney than Obama’s words on it. Just a few short minutes following the debate. By the moderator herself. Who is the one that “corrected” Romney when it was said. What’s that say about the veracity of the “myths” Thinkprogress listed?

Why don’t you actually, you know, be OBJECTIVE for once, Lib1. Like maybe reading something other than the liberal/progressive talking points of the day, or hour. Particularly when it can be shown rather easily, to everyone here, that the “information” you swallow from sites like Thinkprogress are heavily biased, and even outright lies.

It looks like the Obama supporters haven’t stopped at just lying. There was another increase in death threats by Obama supporters against Romney posted after the debate. Slowly but surely we are creeping toward a situation in this country where it is going to get very, very ugly.

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/17/post-presidential-debate-obama-supporters-renew-vows-to-murder-mitt-romney/

@another vet:

I suppose, to liberal/progressives, that these people issuing the threats are an important constituency. People shouldn’t wonder why overall our society is going down the drain. When people wish ill upon someone because they think that person will take away their freebies, to the point of murder, and would rather have the guy in office who perpetuates the reason why they need their “freebies” anyway, I’d say our society is in the process of self-destruction.

“Consider the subtleness of the sea; how its most dreaded creatures glide under water, unapparent for the most part, and treacherously hidden beneath the loveliest tints of azure. Consider also the devilish brilliance and beauty of many of its most remorseless tribes, as the dainty embellished shape of many species of sharks. Consider, once more, the universal cannibalism of the sea; all whose creatures prey upon each other, carrying on eternal war since the world began.

Consider all this; and then turn to the green, gentle, and most docile earth; consider them both, the sea and the land; and do you not find a strange analogy to something in yourself? For as this appalling ocean surrounds the verdant land, so in the soul of man there lies one insular Tahiti, full of peace and joy, but encompassed by all the horrors of the half-known life. God keep thee! Push not off from that isle, thou canst never return!”

Melville, Moby Dick

Why didn’t Romney explain that Wealth Redistribution is a worn out tenet of Karl Marx and contributes nothing to a dynamic economy: indeed, Wealth Redistribution bleeds an economy until it is listless and flaccid. Money loses value as it is taken from one and given to another without an adequate exchange. The receiver has no value attached to the funds and soon needs more until the system devolves from an active economy to a dead and unresponsive economy. There is still this reluctance to challenge the first semi-Black president on his basic philosophy. Since Romney is at a deficit, he should come out and destroy the basic premise of the Obama Redistributionist philosophy.

JG: I care not how our resident Liberals respond, they are among the 47% who will never vote for Romney. I appeal to those who still have control of their faculties and the ability to reason.

@Skookum:

I only asked the question in post #1 because one of the two topics of conversation in the open debate thread had to do with it. And neither Greg, nor Larry, were even close to being accurate. Particularly given that Crowley, herself, admitted that Romney was more correct on it than Obama. Minutes after the debate.

I’d expect Larry to at least acknowledge that tidbit, if and when he comes by again. Greg? Not so much. Intellectual honesty and Greg parted ways a long time ago.

I think Romney has been ramping it up, figuring he was going to be in a competitive fight up to the third debate, where he could get even more specific. What they didn’t know was that Barry was going to hit the choom prep instead of debate prep for the first one. I think there will be ample opportunities for F&F, redistribution of wealth, unemployment, and the hypocrisy of Obama in debate 3.

@johngalt: Agreed that we are in a state of self-destruction. If the lefties think they can get away with pushing the rest of us around and that we will play dead, they will be in for a very rude awakening.

They say you know your guy got beat when you feel compelled to blame the moderator. So I wonder what happened to your guy when you feel compelled to dream up conspiracies to explain a debacle like “the other guy was given all the questions!”. Given the questions? Practically every one one of those questions was patently obvious and should have been expected with a carefully rehearsed answer ready to go. The only one that I think could have even remotely caught either candidate off-guard was the “how do you compare to GWB” question to Romney. So I will grant Romney that: there’s a slight chance he hadn’t practiced that one, but it was still a softball he whiffed on. Romney’s problem is he still refuses to give any details on his economic and tax plans and the evasion is starting to wear a little thin, even I imagine to the most detached and casual voter. Obama has a record to run on and to defend or justify, backed by consistently articulated principles, and people are free to judge him on it, but it’s there, something concrete we can see. Romney has a vague plan that doesn’t add up at a very basic level. It’s the “make everyone happy” plan, too good to be true by a long shot. Romney also refuses to back up his alleged conservative positions on social issues. Since when does his stance on everything from contraception to immigration mimic Obama’s? From what I can tell, it doesn’t seem to bother conservatives that he’s running from conservative positions like a man running from a burning house. The issue for the voter, of course, is which Mitt Romney will be President, the one we met at the RNC, or the one we saw last night?

@Tom: At least you have practice YOUR lines, Tom. The “which Romney/flip-flop” and “no specifics” memes are still going strong.

obama lied on Libya, Candy covered his lie, Mooshell blatantly broke the agreed rules of the audience by clapping like a trained harbor seal. I didn’t hear the audio so I can’t say for sure that she also barked.

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.

How is it still claimed by liberals that Romney’s tax plan is not clear or that he doesn’t have one? Huh?

He articulated a plan very clearly. Obama didn’t understand it. THAT is clear, and he came back with nonsense.

Romney’s plan gives the middle class the ability to choose what it will deduct, to a total amount. Each family has different needs. Brilliant.

Memorizing and remembering liberal talking points was so difficult for Obama last evening that it left him no left-over capacity to LISTEN.

@johngalt, #1:

Greg is probably still in euphoria, thinking Obama “cleaned Romney’s clock”. Even after post-debate fact-checking and discussion shows Obama lying through his teeth practically every time he opened his mouth.

What I think is that republicans much preferred the Obama of the first presidential debate to that of the second. Romney just got his ears soundly boxed. Since there was no teleprompter to blame, republicans are left with the argument that it must be the fault of the referee.

Your candidate seems to come unglued under pressure. I find that worrisome. The pressure of a debate is nothing like the pressure that goes with the presidency. If you make an error there, you don’t just lose points in a poll; you can lose people.

@James Raider:

Show me a liberal/progressive that actually does LISTEN. None of them who post here do. Heck, for that matter, none of the straight liberals, who seem to be too proud to admit they were wrong about Obama back in 2008, don’t want to listen.

Instead, they’ll keep being intellectually dishonest with themselves as long as they don’t have to admit failure. Both on their part and on the part of Obama.

@Greg:

What I think is that republicans much preferred the Obama of the first presidential debate to that of the second. Romney just got his ears soundly boxed. Since there was no teleprompter to blame, it must be the fault of the referee.

That’s just sad, Greg. Obama spent nearly the entire night spinning fairy tales and you want to believe he “soundly boxed” Romney’s ears.

If lying, about both your own record(when he did actually talk about it, which wasn’t often), and what Romney’s “plans” will actually do constitute “winning”, then I guess you are correct. Obama won. Then again, once a liar, always a liar. And Obama is showing that daily, everytime he opens his mouth.

That you still want to project Obama as the debate “winner”, despite the lying on that stage last nite, says quite a bit about your own character, Greg. And it ain’t good.

Doesn’t anyone find it unique that Obama continues to tell us what he will do when he has had nearly 4 years to do something? Yet, he wants Romney to show what he has done. I am confused why any logical person can still support a failure with no promise to be more than an failure.

@johngalt: #23,

Beyond “listening” I also wonder about the capacity to either intellectually or intuitively discern much of anything, particularly when you see liberal dependence on such things as the link referred-to in #2 above as a factual source for establishing or supporting perception on events. Sadly there’s nobody home.

@James Raider, #22:

He articulated a plan very clearly. Obama didn’t understand it. THAT is clear, and he came back with nonsense.

Romney’s plan gives the middle class the ability to choose what it will deduct, to a total amount. Each family has different needs. Brilliant.

The nonsense has to do with Romney’s plan itself. Refer to The Final Word on Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan, which appeared in Bloomberg on October 12. The numbers simply don’t add up:

Mitt Romney’s campaign says I’m full of it. I said Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can’t simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies — six! — that “have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan,” and so I should stop whining. Let’s take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up.

The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as “analyses,” since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I’m not hating — I blog for a living — but I don’t generally describe my posts as “studies.”

None of the analyses do what Romney’s campaign says: show that his tax plan is sound. I’m going to walk through them individually, but first I want to make a broad point . . . (continued)

@Greg: And how does 0-blama’s numbers add up?? Let’s summarize-deficit cut in half by now vs up over $5 trillion?? Unemployment at or below 6% by now?? This is the reality that you just seem to brush away and feebly attempt to understand Romney’s plan.

@Randy: Bingo Randy!! If you compare Romney’s record in MA vs 0-blama’s record for our country, 0-blama is cooked!! It’s rhetoric vs reality. 0-blama has to try and change the focus from “it’s the economy stupid” to anything else and he’s tried to do that. Unfortunately after the first debate his failures are exposed and America is warming up to the idea that Romney is a business man with a track record of success and 0-blama has NO business experience and has failed America relevant to jobs and our economy. Nothing could be more clear!!

@Greg: #28

I’d say that your sourced material includes an author more intent on proving himself “right” than on actually using reason and logic in discussing the Romney/Ryan “plan”.

Heritage and economist Curtis Dubay have the best take on the TPC report that the Bloomberg writer references.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/tax-policy-centers-skewed-analysis-of-governor-romneys-tax-plan

Per Dubay;

However, in this TPC report, the authors’ choices and assumptions lead them to a carefully chosen result that is misleading and biased.

If you want to keep harping on Romney not providing specifics, then you may want to stop using articles and “studies” that inject specifics Romney hasn’t provided, just to show that it won’t work.

One thing is clear, though. Obama’s economic “plans” only drive the government further in debt, with no relief to anyone, especially those who actually want to work. That you would prefer Obama’s “plan”, to anything else, based on Obama repeating time and again that he will make the “rich” pay their “fair share”, shows how superficially you regard personal freedom. Deny it all you want, but by your words and the tone of your comments, you’d rather everyone be in chains as slaves to the government. Except, of course, your messiah and “his people”.

The fact that you advocate your own enslavement is clear to everyone.

@Liberal1 (Objectivity): @Liberal1 (Objectivity): Think Progress?….Really?……bwahahahahahahahaha……That’s rich right there…I’d give more creedence to
the Onion…..Clown.

@Buffalobob:

There is now a much bigger problem for Obama now. If we are to accept the lie (IE, that Obama said the Benghazi murder of four Americans was a terrorist act during his Rose Garden speech, something which Biden at the VP debates said that he and Obama didn’t know,) Then why did his administration send Rice on all the talk shows to say it was part of a spontaneous protests to a little known (to the protesters,) video, and why did Obama parrot her lie, (declaring the Benghazi attack was part of the protests,) at the UN in front of the whole world, and why did the administration continue to repeat the “spontaneous protest” lie for over a week afterwards when they knew 24-hours later that it was a lie”?

Romney needs in the next debate to hammer these continual administration lies home at the next debate, and it will sink Obama’s ship of state.

Skooks #13 You do have a way with words lol Fact is Romney IS rushing hell bent to the middle leaving the Tea Party and true Conservative principles in his rear view mirror. Conservatives like Mata WILL NOT pull the lever for this CINO Mass. Moderate. I respect that.
J.G and other Conservs. on here are selling out for this obvious chameleon.

BTW Dems will hold The Senate 51-49. House numbers will be little changed.

@Enchanted:

Turns out Barack Obama is not so good on equal pay for equal work for women. A bit of post debate fact checking not panning out for Obama.

@Richard Wheeler: I think selling out is continuing to vote for a president who has our country on the road to a 2nd world country and promises to build on that in his second term. The situation of the Country has made people understannd that if there is a prayer for the US to recover, it lies with anyone but Obama. Even those at the debate last night who once voted for Obama have trouble voting for him again. The polls showed a further boost for Romney today. It looks like the pain of Obam’s policies is forcing them to vote Romney.

Randy ” vote anyone but Obama” How sad for you.This guy promised one thing to Conservs. when he trashed Gingrich in Fla. and now as a milktoast mod. is selling out the Tea Party and Conserv. beliefs to get elected. Don’t think he’s gonna get it but as I’ve said from the gitgo it’ll be damn close and decided in Ohio.

@Buffalobob:

Mooschel clapping like a trained seal? That’s a horrible insult to trained seals everywhere!

@Skook:

Tom, the article stated, that if you are willing to cheat with the moderator by interrupting a speaker and allowing the others rudeness to justify extra time because of the importance of his points, how far are you willing to extend the act of cheating

Interesting. I guess we all see the debate we want to see. I was curious where the people whining about Biden’s alleged rudeness all disappeared to in relation to Romney. He basically told Crowley to shut-up, repeatedly violated Obama’s personal space while pointing his finger at him, ordering him to answer questions. I guess a respect for the Office is too much to ask?

Crowley did herself and the Dems no favors. High school pageantry only makes Obama look less Presidential. Independents and the Undecided aren’t going to swing and buy into the Obama platform when the moderator and debate are obviously biased in O’s favor. All she did was play to the liberal base, and both parties aren’t going to gin up any more significant party turnout in the next couple weeks. The D’s who are voting are decided and the R’s who are voting are decided. You’re not going to reach the Independents and Undecided pandering to your base.

@Tom “respect for the Office” – almost every word/promise muttered from Obama’s mouth is out of context, a distortion, lie, or comes with an expiration date. Respect is earned.

The proof that the President was not implicitly applying the term “acts of terror” to Benghazi is that he explicitly refused to apply it to Benghazi when he was subsequently asked.

The New York Observer had endorsed Obama in 2008.
Today it announced it is endorsing Mitt Romney.

Also the AMA’s key policy committee, the Council on Medical Service, voted to endorse a Medicare reform plan that shares key traits with the ones put forth by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

“The [AMA] policy identifies changes that must be made to strengthen the traditional Medicare program (i.e., restructuring beneficiary cost-sharing, including modifying Medigap rules, and changing the eligibility age to match Social Security),” the Council writes.

This after Joe Biden claimed that the American Medical Association sided with him, and against Paul Ryan, on the merits of the Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare reform.

The state of Virginia has what is called ”endorsement week.
So far, the Wheeling News-Register, The Intelligencer of Wheeling, The Journal of Martinsburg, the Weirton Daily Times and the Parkersburg News and Sentinel and The Inter-Mountain in Elkins have all endorsed Mitt Romney.

Billy Graham of the Evangelistic Association has not only endorsed Mitt Romney, he has scrubbed their web site of all references to Mormonism as a cult!

Colorado papers are starting to name who they endorse.
Since Oct. 1, the (Colorado Springs) Gazette, the Pueblo Chieftain, the Longmont Times-Call and The (Grand Junction) Daily Sentinel have endorsed Mr. Romney, while only the (Boulder) Daily Camera has backed President Obama.

Even gays are not in lockstep to Obama:

The National Science Foundation spent $30,000 supporting the “gaydar” study conducted by the University of Washington and Cornell University. “At a time when families – gay and straight – are being asked to tighten their belts and make tough decisions about spending because of the disastrous Obama economy it is an absolute insult to hear that federal tax dollars were spent ‘researching’ whether or not you can guess someone’s sexual orientation just by looking at them,”

said Christopher R. Barron, Co-Founder and Chief Strategist for GOProud – a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting freemarkets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights. GOProud is also the only national gay organization to endorse Mitt Romney.
On a financial news morning show Mr. Barron cited studies and polls showing between 25% and 32% of gays will NOT be voting for Obama.

Looks like even the liberal Europeans agree with Romney’s means of stimulating the economy! http://www.cnbc.com/id/49433579

@James Raider:

He articulated a plan very clearly. Obama didn’t understand it. THAT is clear, and he came back with nonsense.

Romney’s plan gives the middle class the ability to choose what it will deduct, to a total amount. Each family has different needs. Brilliant.

He has not articulated his plan “very clearly”. That is simply not true. He has not told the American public what loopholes will be closed and what deductions will be eliminated, and the devil is in the details. The American public has a right to know this information for the simple reason that they can’t make an informed decision on how it will affect them personally. Obama has told us that he plans to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and roll the top tax bracket back to Clinton year levels. So if someone in that bracket feels they can’t support Obama for that reason, he’s at least given them the information they require to make that decision in an open and honest fashion. Romney is hoping that everyone in America will assume that the Romney plan won’t raise their taxes even though we know that’s impossible. The one new detail that Romney floated last night was capping itemized deductions. According to Forbes, that won’t come close to covering the Romney tax cuts:

To get a sense of how much money we could raise by capping tax deductions, my TPC colleagues have analyzed the resulting revenue gains and distributional impacts of four ways to limit itemized deductions—eliminating them entirely and capping them at $17,000, $25,000, or $50,000—calculated against three benchmarks (current law, current policy, and current policy with 20 percent lower rates and elimination of the AMT). As usual, the current law baseline has all expiring tax cuts actually expiring, while the current policy baseline has almost all of them permanently extended.

Eliminating all itemized deductions would yield about $2 trillion of additional revenue over 10 years if we cut all rates by 20 percent and eliminate the AMT. Capping deductions would generate less additional revenue, and the higher the cap, the smaller the gain. Limiting deductions to $17,000 would increase revenues by nearly $1.7 trillion over 10 years. A $25,000 cap would yield roughly $1.3 trillion and a $50,000 cap would raise only about $760 billion.
….
Suggesting limits on deductions was Governor Romney’s first public statement about how he might offset the revenue lost by cutting tax rates. Without more specifics, we can’t say how much revenue such limits would actually raise. But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed.

So where are the rest of the funds going to come from to pay for the tax cuts? Here’s one guess: they’re going to come from the elimination of deductions that mostly benefit middle class and working poor families. As you suggest, Romney’s thinking is that with your 20% tax cut, you can use that additional savings to pay for whatever deductions you’re losing. Of course that doesn’t add up for a family that is bringing in smaller amounts of income. A 20% cut to a family bringing in less than $50K a year isn’t going to pay for the elimination of The American Opportunity Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, The Child Tax Credit, etc. etc., etc.. It’s not going to pay for limiting or eliminating funding to programs like Planned Parenthood, which many working women rely on for health care issues, such as breast cancer screenings. This approach could force kids out of college. This approach could force women out of the workforce who can’t afford child care. Romney’s plan could potentially cripple many working class families financially. And he just smiles and tell us that it’s all going to work out fine because he’s such a genius businessman, and he thinks we’re all idiot enough to take him at his word. Simply put, he refuses to do the honorable thing and tell us the details of his plan.

@Kevin:

The proof that the President was not implicitly applying the term “acts of terror” to Benghazi is that he explicitly refused to apply it to Benghazi when he was subsequently asked.

Would you care to cite a specific instance where Obama explicitly refused to apply the term act of terror to Benghazi when he was subsequently asked?

I liken this to a hockey game. The crowd is against you. The refs are in the tank for the home team. The time keeper and goal judges are crooked. You can still win by playing clean hockey. Talent can still win the game.

@Tom: So what is Obam’a plan now that the average middle class family income has been reduced by$4300, and gasoline prices have doubled, and for every job Obama has created, 10 people finally quit looking for a job that isn’t there? What Romney is discussing is a plan. He still needs to have the congress pass the bill. Obama has had 4 years and he did what for the middle class?

@Richard Wheeler: Kind of like when in 2008 Obama campaigned as a lefty against Hillary and then as a “moderate” against McCain? Go back and look at campaigns. What you will see is a pattern whereby in the primaries the candidates appeal to their base, i.e ‘D’s to the left and ‘R’s to the right, and then shift closer to the center during the general election in order to appeal to a broader base. That is how elections are won. In Obama’s case he has governed as a lefty and not a moderate so any attempt by him or anyone else to pretend he is a moderate is laughable. Bill Clinton he is not. It remains to be seen how a President Romney will govern, to the right or the center. We’ll find out if he wins.

1 2 3 4