Wrap up: The second debate; Update: Obama wins CBS insta-poll narrowly, but Romney wins big on economy; Update: Actually, Romney had a point, says Crowley

posted at 11:19 pm on October 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

The consensus among the righties that I follow on Twitter is that it was a push, with Romney acing his answer on the economy and underperforming when he finally took on The One on Libya. Better that than vice versa, though: As Ben Domenech said, only one of those is an issue that people will vote on.

There were several key exchanges — the staredown on energy, Romney politely distancing himself from Bush — but I’m giving you the economy and Libya answers below, via the Examiner and Daily Caller, respectively. Romney seemed unprepared for the pushback from Obama and his pal Candy on what he said about “acts of terror” in the Rose Garden on September 12; The One now wants us to believe that he was forthright about calling it a terrorist attack all along, when in fact he was so coy and evasive that Jay Carney had to clarify his view for the press more than two weeks later. Romney didn’t chase him on that or on all the other nonsense in the aftermath — blaming a “spontaneous protest” when even the earliest intel suggested a terror attack, running ads in Pakistan groveling over a private citizen’s insult to Mohammed, the snowballing revelations about just how indifferent State was to Chris Stevens’s security, etc. O even got to play the part of the indignant C-in-C, declaring how offended he was that anyone would accuse him of playing politics with this issue when, in fact, he’s been playing politics with it since day one. And of course, just as I expected, he finally took meaningless symbolic responsibility for the Benghazi security failure now that Hillary had covered his ass by taking responsibility herself last night.

The good news? Mitt gets another crack at the Libya attack in the next debate, which will focus exclusively on foreign policy. He’ll be very well prepared, rest assured. And since most of the media’s coverage tomorrow will focus on the Libya exchange tonight, that issue will continue to get plenty of coverage for the rest of the week. I can live with that. Exit quotation from Ben Smith: “Romney did, again, come away looking like a guy who could be president, which is probably the most important thing.” Yep.


Update: Here’s something else I can live with:

I’d much, much rather have had Romney make a strong impression on the economy than “win” overall with barely more than a one-third plurality. If you think undecideds are going to go into the booth in November and think hard about jobs, then these are the numbers you want to see.

Update: Like I said up top:

After that generic reference to “acts of terror” in the Rose Garden — which was so generic that the media forgot all about it for weeks afterward — the White House strained very hard not to call this a terror attack. They desperately wanted it to be a protest that got out of hand, all thanks to that Mohammed movie. If it’s a terror attack, then the administration has to explain why they didn’t see it coming and why The Man Who Got Bin Laden somehow let his ambassador’s compound be overrun by an Al Qaeda affiliate. Which narrative is better if you’re running a reelection campaign?

Update: I didn’t see it, but the word on Twitter is that Frank Luntz’s focus group tonight on Fox was simply brutal to Obama.

Update: I’m hearing now that Anderson Cooper challenged Crowley’s spin on the “acts of terror” comment on CNN’s post-debate show. Jay Cost is right, as usual:

Update: Note to David Axelrod: You sure you want to spend another media cycle or three on Libya?

Update: Via the Washington Free Beacon, here’s O conspicuously refusing to use the T-word to describe Benghazi — on September 25.

Update: NRO’s Patrick Brennan on why Obama’s “acts of terror” reference in the Rose Garden on September 12 wasn’t really a reference to Benghazi:

His only mention of “terror”:

“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.”

One could take that as a reference to acts which include the tragedy in Benghazi, obviously, but there was clearly no effort made to label it an act of terrorism. One reason why this might be: According to U.S. law, acts of terrorism are premeditated. The Obama administration’s line for days following Obama’s Rose Garden statement suggested that the attack wasn’t premeditated.

Update: Via the Examiner, now she tells us:

Upwards of 60 million people likely watched her side with Obama on Libya during the debate. How many saw this clip on CNN’s post-game show? One million, maybe?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12

The debate was a plus for Romney.
Obama – neutral. (And that he had to have the moderator come to the rescue on the Libya thing…well…)

The main impression I had was:
1. With the debates more and more people see Romney and see what they like about him. Each debate is a plus for him.
2. Obama is not a great speaker, thinker or talker.
3. Romney is much more personable and professional than Obama. Romney comes across as a guy you can trust.
4. People will come away with the image of Obama that he did not answer direct questions (immigration, Libya) and that he talks like a “politician”, spewing out talking points to avoid answering.

Romney had a good debate, yes, it could have been better; he could have put Obama away with the right answer on the Libya – such as “There you go again, Mr. President, you were asked a specific question and you did not answer it.”
He also could have been more clearer on Fast & Furious and used better language to frame it.
But on the economy and jobs Romney hammered clear his points and the failures of Obama.

In the third debate Romney needs to ask the question or sum up that all Obama has done during the debates his critique Romney’s plans for making America better, but yet he has not yet given any solutions to the problems or specific visions for America in the next 4 years.

albill on October 17, 2012 at 8:08 AM

“Pension envy”

I’m sorry, but that’s brilliant. very clever. :-)

bluegill on October 17, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Isn’t it though?? I hope someone takes it and runs with it.

hoosiermama on October 17, 2012 at 8:09 AM

that 47% comment response sure was a hit
/

cmsinaz on October 17, 2012 at 8:10 AM

The bottom line from this group was that they did not believe a word Obama said.
If this is how the general public feels, Obama is in deep, deep trouble.

Jabberwock on October 17, 2012 at 7:37 AM

It is. My older sister is was an Obama supporter until recently and last Thanksgiving she still “loved” him. This past weekend she can’t stand either candidate. Not sure when the scales were lifted. She’s an educated liberal who thinks she is informed because she gets her news from NPR. Bless her heart.(I tell her that everytime she tries to discuss politics.)

Rio Linda Refugee on October 17, 2012 at 8:11 AM

I thought Candy Crowley did a good job for most of the night. Unfortunately that’s like saying I was a good driver on my way to work except for those few seconds when I wasn’t looking at the road or traffic and ended up causing a 25 car pile up on the interstate, not to mention the 50 cars I side swiped before the pile up

PerceptorII on October 17, 2012 at 7:06 AM

FTFY

Animal60 on October 17, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Why would you want to make the more difficult argument? When he said “no acts of terror” in the Rose Garden he was obviously referring to Benghazi.

Just because he said acts of terror somewhere in the vicinity of bengazi, does not cut it by any stretch. there was nothing obvious about it, typical dem equivocation. he dodged calling it terror again and again , on the view, at the un….. so stop with general “acts of terror” somewhere in obama’s speech defense.

runner on October 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM

The end result–what specifics did Obama lay out to address: 1) 23 mill unempl 2)$16 trill debt 3) $4 gas 4) no budget in 3 yrs 5) poverty rate highest since 1960s 6) median incomes dropping 7.3% since taking office 8)47 million on food stamps 9) Doubling the deficit..

ZERO…and now he has Libya debacle with an assist from Candy Eat Crowley to deal with this a.m…

hillsoftx on October 17, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Romney seemed unprepared for the pushback from Obama and his pal Candy on what he said about “acts of terror” in the Rose Garden on September 12; The One now wants us to believe that he was forthright about calling it a terrorist attack all along, when in fact he was so coy and evasive that Jay Carney had to clarify his view for the press more than two weeks later. – Allah

Election ending opportunity missed right there, unfortunately.

Had Romney paused, looked right at Obama, and said something along the lines of:

“Wait a minute. Now your story is that you knew immediately that it was a terrorist attach and you STILL went to a party in Vegas the next day? You knew it was a terrorist attach and you STILL sent surrogates onto the Sunday talk shows to blame it on a YouTube video and essentially lie to the American people? I’d like to yield the rest of my time on this to President Obama because I think Kerry, and the rest of America, deserve a real answer.”

Game over. There’s literally no possible response to that.

BadgerHawk on October 17, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Open thread: The second debate

Oct 16, 2012 8:38 PM by Allahpundit
5,080 Comments »

Wrap up: The second debate; Update: Obama wins CBS insta-poll narrowly, but Romney wins big on economy; Update: Actually, Romney had a point, says Crowley

Oct 16, 2012 11:19 PM by Allahpundit
1,008 Comments »

Combined total well over 6,000 comments!

ITguy on October 17, 2012 at 8:19 AM

that 47% comment response sure was a hit
/

cmsinaz on October 17, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Obama is such a little girl. Waiting until Romney can’t even respond to hit him with that.

BadgerHawk on October 17, 2012 at 8:19 AM

It was nauseating to me. I turned it off.

scalleywag on October 17, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Michelle… Michelle… Michelle…

If you’re gonna break the rules so loudly, don’t sit in camera range.

Fallon on October 17, 2012 at 8:25 AM

BadgerHawk

Gosh. Too bad you’re not running for President.

lostmotherland on October 17, 2012 at 8:25 AM

I think the whole emphasis on these debates is wrong. What does it matter who ‘Won or Lost’? The important thing is the philosophy of each man…what does he stand for…not who is the smoothest and most glib. We might as well cast our vote on which one is the better Tap Dancer.

Uniblogger on October 17, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Obama is such a little girl. Waiting until Romney can’t even respond to hit him with that.

BadgerHawk

Why did Romney say it in the first place?

lostmotherland on October 17, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Why did Romney say it in the first place?

lostmotherland on October 17, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Why didn’t your boy admit he pays women working in the white house less than the men?

Explain that you gutless reprobate.

tom daschle concerned on October 17, 2012 at 8:28 AM

That Frank Luntz panel was brutal on Obama.
If one did not watch the debate and only saw that panel in action, they’d come away thinking Romney stomped Obama.
A totally different take than the chattering class.
The bottom line from this group was that they did not believe a word Obama said.
If this is how the general public feels, Obama is in deep, deep trouble.

Jabberwock on October 17, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Luntz is a charlatan. He’s been censured for his unethical practices. Additionally, he was hired by Michael Bloomberg for a gun control study in which Luntz manipulated the questions and data in order to falsely show that NRA members were for gun control. The NRA slammed him for his falsehoods.

Here’s all you need to know about Luntz, in his own words:

Link

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Heh badger

:)

cmsinaz on October 17, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Why didn’t your boy admit he pays women working in the white house less than the men?

Explain that you gutless reprobate.

tom daschle concerned

Answer the question or STFU.

lostmotherland on October 17, 2012 at 8:32 AM

This is your America

Establishment suppresses non-approved voices

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:29 AM

What has that to do with how those folks responed last night ?
If the panel was stacked with Republican, Romney supporters you may have a point.
But, most admitted that they voted Obama in ’08

Honestly, I was VERY surprised by how strongly they felt.

Ah well, best to watch and form your own opinion.

Jabberwock on October 17, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Answer the question or STFU.

lostmotherland on October 17, 2012 at 8:32 AM

Good little stalinist. I could hear the click of your jackboots as you adjusted your armband.

See you under the klieg lights reprobate!

tom daschle concerned on October 17, 2012 at 8:41 AM

What has that to do with how those folks responded last night ?

Jabberwock on October 17, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Everything.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I was pretty nervous going into last night’s debate. I knew that Romney had the cards stacked against him with Mr. Crowley at the helm. Considering what he was up against, I think Romney did very well. During the debate, I kept waiting for Romney to mention many of Obama’s failures including the green losers, but he didn’t, and at the time, I was disappointed. In retrospect though, I think he did exactly the right thing, he hammered him on his dismal failure and incompetence in handling the economy. I don’t think he sealed the deal, but I don’t think the momentum will shift back to the boy king either. I’m less nervous about the post-debate polls, than I was about the debate itself.

Norky on October 17, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Romney definitely lost the Libya exchange, even without Ms. Crowley’s assist. Getting caught up in a fight over the parsing of “acts of terror” is a loser. The point Romney needs to make is that Libya has become a hotbed for AQ, requests for security were denied, and as a result we have a dead U.SM Ambassador.

Outside of that, another strong performance by Romney. He killed it on the economy, the number one issue on voters’ minds.

ncconservative on October 17, 2012 at 8:43 AM

“The key in survey research is to ask questions that people care about the answers, and to ask a question in a way that you get the right answer” – Frank Luntz

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:44 AM

From the Headline linked Daily Caller story comment section, Obama didn’t answer the question that was asked:

QUESTION: We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans.

Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

Fallon on October 17, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Why did Romney say it in the first place?

lostmotherland on October 17, 2012 at 8:26 AM

I think Obama planned to hit him on the 47% thing at the end, when he couldn’t respond, no matter what.

Romney just anticipated that the attack was coming and tried to head it off in his closing response.

BadgerHawk on October 17, 2012 at 8:45 AM

In addition to all the measured words in the Rose Garden statement, notice how teh won characterized the act as criminal or a crime (I don’t have the transcript). This further distances him from calling it terrorism carried out by terrorists. To him, these were a bunch of overly excited gangbangers or something.

freedomfirst on October 17, 2012 at 8:45 AM

In addition to all the measured words in the Rose Garden statement, notice how teh won characterized the act as criminal or a crime (I don’t have the transcript). This further distances him from calling it terrorism carried out by terrorists. To him, these were a bunch of overly excited gangbangers or something.

freedomfirst on October 17, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Of course it’s a crime/criminal. Labeling it an act of terrorism doesn’t change that.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:50 AM

The bottom line from this group was that they did not believe a word Obama said.
If this is how the general public feels, Obama is in deep, deep trouble.

Jabberwock on October 17, 2012 at 7:37 AM

How on earth can one believe a cretinoid who maintains that 4 dollah gas is a sign that the economy came back roaring :)…the correlation is counter-intuitive at best. this man is either a humongous idiot, or he suffers from pseudologia fantastica big time… 8% unemployment (sorry, but didn’t fall for the faux 7.8% crapola) and predicted growth of 1.3% first quarter of 2013, and that’s a good exonomy?? Yeah, they can revise that up and down till hey get blue in their face, it’s still a crappy growth, bordering recession.

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 8:51 AM

GOP should be careful about how much they focus on the consulate attack. Even if the event is bad for Obama, he rather talk about that than the disastrous economy any day.

NORUK on October 17, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Why would you want to make the more difficult argument? When he said “no acts of terror” in the Rose Garden he was obviously referring to Benghazi.

Just because he said acts of terror somewhere in the vicinity of bengazi, does not cut it by any stretch. there was nothing obvious about it, typical dem equivocation. he dodged calling it terror again and again , on the view, at the un….. so stop with general “acts of terror” somewhere in obama’s speech defense.

runner on October 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I agree with runner. The Rose Garden statement was highly engineered and the words were carefully chosen to leave maneuver space. It was liberal equivocation and parsing. “Acts of terror” was included for the precise purpose of giving the impression that you libs are walking away with.

I’d like to see what the Benghazi investigations do with teh won’s claims from last night in conjunction with the Rose Garden statement and all his subsequent parsing.

freedomfirst on October 17, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Rhetorical Games alert. Dante is here only to engage you in Rhetorical Games and derail the thread. Please be advised.

kingsjester on October 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Of course it’s a crime/criminal. Labeling it an act of terrorism doesn’t change that.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:50 AM

I believe the characterization diminishes it. Like saying the attacks on the World Trade Center were a crime. Falls way short in my estimation.

freedomfirst on October 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM

This is all they got, just some bad wording from Romney. The Libs can’t find anything else to use against him. He won again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218891/Mitt-Romney-scores-accidental-internet-hit-binders-women-debate-meme.html

Brat on October 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM

kingsjester on October 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Noted. Thanks.

freedomfirst on October 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I believe the characterization diminishes it. Like saying the attacks on the World Trade Center were a crime. Falls way short in my estimation.

freedomfirst on October 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM

The attacks on the WTC were crimes. How does it diminish it? It was a criminal organization, even if their motives were political. It wasn’t the act of a state.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I feel bad for make-up artists. After last nights debate Candy, Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory, there is going to be a major pancake #10 shortage. They need to go to radio in our HD era. Wow.

JeffinOrlando on October 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I’ve got FORWARD’s four words … “It’s The Economy Fools”.

kregg on October 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Michelle Obama Broke Agreed Upon Rules, Clapped At Debate –

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/michelle_obama_broke_agreed_upon_rules_clapped_at_debate.html

Pork-Chop on October 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM

It wasn’t the act of a state.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Who acted?
Not the administration.

freedomfirst on October 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM

“The key in survey research is to ask questions that people care about the answers, and to ask a question in a way that you get the right answer” – Frank Luntz

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:44 AM

That is called a Targeted Question. Nothing wrong with that.
He is not saying what is right.
Quite frankly, many pollsters get called on this.
He is saying to ask a question in such a way that it must be specifically answered. Avoids bs and meandering answers.
Also, “survey research”. Not polling a live panel.

Jabberwock on October 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM

That is called a Targeted Question. Nothing wrong with that.
He is not saying what is right.
Quite frankly, many pollsters get called on this.
He is saying to ask a question in such a way that it must be specifically answered. Avoids bs and meandering answers.
Also, “survey research”. Not polling a live panel.

Jabberwock on October 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM

He (and pollsters) decide what is the right answer, and they’ll ask questions, and they’ll ask them in such a way, to get the answer they want. Personally, I don’t like someone trying to manipulate me.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Michelle Obama Broke Agreed Upon Rules, Clapped At Debate –

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/michelle_obama_broke_agreed_upon_rules_clapped_at_debate.html

Pork-Chop on October 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Thanks for posting that. Had read it was her last night but had not seen the evidence. The 0bamas are liars and cheaters.

Brat on October 17, 2012 at 9:08 AM

The attacks on the WTC were crimes. How does it diminish it? It was a criminal organization, even if their motives were political. It wasn’t the act of a state.
Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Don’t tell the Ummah that.
Their view of a “state” is just a tad different than yours.

Jabberwock on October 17, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Romney leads by one in Rasmussen, 49-48, but loses by three in the swing states, 50-47

gumbyandpokey on October 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Why would you want to make the more difficult argument? When he said “no acts of terror” in the Rose Garden he was obviously referring to Benghazi.
Just because he said acts of terror somewhere in the vicinity of bengazi, does not cut it by any stretch. there was nothing obvious about it, typical dem equivocation. he dodged calling it terror again and again , on the view, at the un….. so stop with general “acts of terror” somewhere in obama’s speech defense.

runner on October 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM
I agree with runner. The Rose Garden statement was highly engineered and the words were carefully chosen to leave maneuver space. It was liberal equivocation and parsing. “Acts of terror” was included for the precise purpose of giving the impression that you libs are walking away with.

I’d like to see what the Benghazi investigations do with teh won’s claims from last night in conjunction with the Rose Garden statement and all his subsequent parsing.

freedomfirst on October 17, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Maybe someone else brought this up earlier (haven’t had a chance to go through all of the comments). Has anyone questioned how convenient it was that Crowley knew that Obama mentioned “terror” in the Rose Garden statement? What about Obama hastily throwing out that Romney check the transcript? Seems as though someone knew this line of questioning was coming up. Otherwise, I am to believe that Crowley just happened to memorize Obama’s Rose Garden speech which is why she could jump on it and confirm with so much certainty. Something just stinks about that whole exchange.

texasmagnolia on October 17, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Personally, I don’t like someone trying to manipulate me.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Neither do I. But in truth, that is what life is all about.
It is just a matter of degree.

Jabberwock on October 17, 2012 at 9:13 AM

The problem, as I see it, is that Crowley (nor any interviewer) should insert themselves into the debate, except to mark time expiring or to indicate a change of subject. With that said, I don’t think she did it intentionally but …

still

Sailfish on October 17, 2012 at 9:15 AM

The libs’ heads will explode when they lose this election.

Look at the outsized response over on Huff n’ Puff to Obama’s performance.

claudius on October 17, 2012 at 9:17 AM

The good news? Mitt gets another crack at the Libya attack in the next debate, which will focus exclusively on foreign policy. He’ll be very well prepared, rest assured.

Even better news? The President already has Romney’s number on Libya and will also be very well prepared. There’s nothing Romney will be able to bring on Libya that the President will not be able to counter.

Republicans are desperately hoping to hurt the President on Libya and it’s just not gonna happen.

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Candy Crowley’s Benghazi Lifeline to Obama –

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/candy-crowleys-benghazi-lifeline-to-obama/

In an outrage destined for the history books, the moderator of last night’s hotly contested presidential debate uttered an untruth about President Obama’s deadly bungling in Libya after Obama overtly asked her on live television to support his dishonest version of it.

Pork-Chop on October 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

“The key in survey research is to ask questions that people care about the answers, and to ask a question in a way that you get the right answer” – Frank Luntz

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Aw, now you are an expert in qualifative methods? If you had any clue of focus group research you’d know he is right. Engagement with the concerns of participants is crucial for focus groups research, so, yes, he is right that he has to ask questions that people care about. As you are probably not aware of, the methods of asking questions are not standardized when it comes to focus groups research, and they might differ according to the individual situation, unlike the case of traditional quantitative methods (surveys). he is also right about the latter, you have to get the right answers, meaning that if the questions they assemble in their focus group questionnaire are not well framed and properly understood by the participants, or they don’t care enough for them, the participants tend to ramble OT and it makes it harder on the focus group designer, who often times administers the questions himself/herself (so they are the ‘data collectors’ too) to analyse and generalise from said answers, and sometimes even quantify the results (though most focus group experts are against quantifying the resuts).. So, the answers have to be ‘right’ indeed. But you wouldn’t understand qualitaive methods if they hit you in the head.

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

You never miss an opportunity to make a very poor assumption and to display your ignorance. Well done.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Rhetorical Games alert. Dante is here only to engage you in Rhetorical Games and derail the thread. Please be advised.

kingsjester on October 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM

But he has no clue what he is talking about, note the quote from Luntz, while ne knows shite about focus groups, their purpose and their methodology. The man is an imbecile.

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM

RNC amd/or Super Pacs are going to have to clean up this Libya problem, because the networks will never be fair to Romney on this.

The whole thing was a set-up between Crowley and Obama. How could any debate moderator possibly remember if one word was stated in a Rose Garden Statement from more than a month ago? It was a FIX.

The other thing: Romney must STOP asking Obama questions. You indict this man and his record, don’t engage him, because he either lies or filibusters.

matthew8787 on October 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

You never miss an opportunity to make a very poor assumption and to display your ignorance. Well done.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM

The most derided imbecile/fool on this forum talking about ignorance :) , ha, that’s rich…

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Republicans are desperately hoping to hurt the President on Libya and it’s just not gonna happen.

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Dream on. The paid ads begin today with Bam-Bam refusing to call the event terrorism on The View and at the United Nations, among other venues.

matthew8787 on October 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

The most derided imbecile/fool on this forum talking about ignorance :) , ha, that’s rich…

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM

No kidding.

ShadowsPawn on October 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Candy Crowley’s Benghazi Lifeline to Obama –

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/candy-crowleys-benghazi-lifeline-to-obama/

In an outrage destined for the history books, the moderator of last night’s hotly contested presidential debate uttered an untruth about President Obama’s deadly bungling in Libya after Obama overtly asked her on live television to support his dishonest version of it.

Pork-Chop on October 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

A little morning wrap up music from Marcy’s Playground.

Fallon on October 17, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Once you Republicans stop wetting yourselves over Candy Crowley, you’ll realize that the President was rope-a-doping Romney.

Figure it out:
After Romney brought up the Rose Garden speech, the President said twice: “Proceed”. He was inviting Romney to keep talking.

And before Crowley spoke, the President said: Get the transcript. He knew he had trapped Romney. He didn’t need any help from Crowley.

Everybody knows rope-a-dope, but Obama used a different Ali technique on Mitt last night:

“First you get him drunk, then you mug him.”

Romney got mugged.

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Once you Republicans stop wetting yourselves over Candy Crowley, you’ll realize that the President was rope-a-doping Romney.

Figure it out:
After Romney brought up the Rose Garden speech, the President said twice: “Proceed”. He was inviting Romney to keep talking.

And before Crowley spoke, the President said: Get the transcript. He knew he had trapped Romney. He didn’t need any help from Crowley.

Everybody knows rope-a-dope, but Obama used a different Ali technique on Mitt last night:

“First you get him drunk, then you mug him.”

Romney got mugged.

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

You’re on crack, Obama had no ‘technique’, ‘ just his typical idiotic rambling (doubt you can call that ‘technique’) in his characteristic manner. See the answer to the high gas prices question :) worst intellectual midget could have come up with a better answer than that…but then you re so brainwashed yourself, or worse lobotomized, that it’s it’s hard to converse with you…

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:51 AM

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Eternity holds your reward reprobate.

*claps*

tom daschle concerned on October 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:51 AM

tom daschle concerned on October 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

“Get the transcript!”

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Man, Chump. You’ve got to stop using the pipe this early in the morning.

kingsjester on October 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:51 AM

tom daschle concerned on October 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

“Get the transcript!”

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Get a brain, and if possible a life!!!

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Oh, Chump, they did get the transcipt. And, John Anderson corrected Candy Crowley. Mitt was right.

Have a Kleenex.

kingsjester on October 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM

In addition to all the measured words in the Rose Garden statement, notice how teh won characterized the act as criminal or a crime (I don’t have the transcript). This further distances him from calling it terrorism carried out by terrorists. To him, these were a bunch of overly excited gangbangers or something.

freedomfirst on October 17, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Of course it’s a crime/criminal. Labeling it an act of terrorism doesn’t change that.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Don’t be an idiot. It can’t be a crime if the supposed criminals are not under our jurisdiction.

Besides that, there are totally different ways to approach crimes and acts of terror. If it’s a crime, then the rule is that the criminal is innocent until proven guilty, and all the investigation, prosecution, and conviction is built around that concept. But we have no authority to investigate, prosecute or convict the supposed criminals, so treating it as a crime is a dead end.

It was an attack. The only reason they killed these men is because they were Americans. The proper response is to treat it as an attack.

That’s why terrorism grew so much in the Clinton administration: the idiot president put the FBI in charge of terrorism as if they were crimes. This is no small distinction. The desire to treat acts of terrorism as crimes is exactly why 9/11 was never caught before it happened. The FBI, like a good law enforcement organization, refused to use any information in the investigation of potential plots that might complicate their ability to get a conviction by violating due process.

Because they insisted on treating terrorism like crimes.

tom on October 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

OBAMA BLAMED THE VIDEO FIRST! PERIOD.

In Obama’s speech from the Rose Garden, before the phrase “acts of terror” ever leaves his lips — in fact, 6 paragraphs before — HE BLAMES THE VIDEO.

SINCE OUR FOUNDING, THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN A NATION THAT RESPECTS ALL FAITHS. WE REJECT ALL EFFORTS TO DENIGRATE THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF OTHERS. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.” (Paragraph 4 of 13)

[snip]

“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.” (Paragraph 10 of 13)

The first two lines of paragraph 4 would be irrelevant if he was going to designate the attack “terrorism.”

Also, under Federal law, acts of terrorism, BY DEFINITION, are premeditated. Thus, they cannot be “spontaneous uprisings”…ever.

Here’s the full transcript:

http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack

Further…

Is this how you synonymously refer to terrorism:

“But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.

Paragraph 4 of 13 from his Rose Garden statement….6 paragraphs before the word terror is mentioned.

Are “senseless acts of violence” just another way of describing terrorism?

Resist We Much on October 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM

2. Obama is not a great speaker, thinker or talker.
albill on October 17, 2012 at 8:08 AM

It’s amazing how many times he stands there blankly for 5-10 seconds before even beginning an answer.

The libs will say it’s because he’s ‘deliberate’ or some such garbage.

In reality you can almost hear the ungreased wheels in that jug-eared head turning.

SittingDeadRed on October 17, 2012 at 10:24 AM

And before Crowley spoke, the President said: Get the transcript. He knew he had trapped Romney. He didn’t need any help from Crowley.

Everybody knows rope-a-dope, but Obama used a different Ali technique on Mitt last night:

“First you get him drunk, then you mug him.”

Romney got mugged.

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

The biggest gift to Romney, now for the next few days they (the MSM) who have ignored Obama’s foolish video excuse, will now have to face the fact that Obama and his team lied to the American public, and guys like you will have to defend the liar in Chief…
He spoke at the U.N., you fool, land mentioned the video 6 times and terrorism none…that is how he acts on the International stage, he sent out his goon, and she went on 5 different news shows and sprouted off about the video, no mention of terrorism, and Obama on late night TV and the View(about the only press conferences he gives), blamed the video…

All of this will be rehashed, and prove that he is a liar…meanwhile the only “applause” he received was from his wife who (of course) broke the rules she signed on to about clapping and cheering.

She was cheering on his lies…that is who you have in the White House, and you are proud of it…people who lie to your face, but tell the truth to the world.

And, of course, you buy into it because you have no filter…you are a democrat.

right2bright on October 17, 2012 at 10:33 AM

“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.”

Given what he said for 2 weeks following that statement and what others in the administration said — that they didn’t know the cause and were investigating — the President’s claim at last night’s debate that he labeled what happened in Bengazi to be an act of terror is an outright lie.

Though significant, that solitary untruth pales in significance compared to what it embodies. Specifically, by resolutely stating without qualification that on September 12th he had labeled it a terrorist attack, he implicitly admits that he knew it was a terrorist attack on that very day. Occurring merely a month ago, the time he learned it was a terrorist attack must be etched firmly in his mind. So make no mistake, as we have all expected all along, he has admitted that he knew it was a terrorist attack at least from day two.

EconomicNeocon on October 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Are “senseless acts of violence” just another way of describing terrorism?

Resist We Much on October 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM

This was Obama’s big gotcha moment.

He knew Libya was coming and some idiot staffer finds the word ‘terror’ in that Rose Garden address (you know O doesn’t remember a word, he was already thinking about Vegas).

So they decide that this is the big bomb they can drop to destroy the narrative. You can tell it was premeditated, O brings up the Rose Garden with that smug ‘please punch me in the face’ look and then drops the condescending “Proceed Governor” when he hadn’t let him ‘proceed’ with a single other thought.

Candy of course gives him the assist, without which the smug look would have been wasted because every person who knows about Libya know it isn’t true.

Apparently this was supposed to make the American people forget the weeks of lies they heard from the Administration. I doubt it worked on anybody who has a clue as to what’s going on.

The best news is that it just gives Romney another chance to expose the lying fraud. I would think Mitt will get more than 2 minutes of time to discuss Libya during a Foreign Policy debate.

It’s much better that it came up now than in the final debate.

SittingDeadRed on October 17, 2012 at 10:36 AM

The smell of desperation in the morning. Enjoy it my friends. Thier panic is divine. Thier tears will be sweeter still. ; )

Bmore on October 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Once you Republicans stop wetting yourselves over Candy Crowley, you’ll realize that the President was rope-a-doping Romney.

Figure it out:
After Romney brought up the Rose Garden speech, the President said twice: “Proceed”. He was inviting Romney to keep talking.

And before Crowley spoke, the President said: Get the transcript. He knew he had trapped Romney. He didn’t need any help from Crowley.

Everybody knows rope-a-dope, but Obama used a different Ali technique on Mitt last night:

“First you get him drunk, then you mug him.”

Romney got mugged.

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Romney got mugged and SCOAMF will get convicted of perjury in the final debate.

It was an attempt at word play that only libs and a moron like you (but I repeat myself) would fall for.

I bet you can even tell us what the definition of ‘is’ is.

SittingDeadRed on October 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM

and SCOAMF will get convicted of perjury in the final debate.

SittingDeadRed on October 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I hate the b@st@rd every bit as much as you do, but you can’t possibly be serious about that.

MelonCollie on October 17, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Apart from her babbling as she tried to justify herself, what I noticed was her comment

I knew he would probably get a question on Libya…

She knew because she was picking the questions…she made it clear beforehand that she would review the submitted questions and decide which ones would be put to the candidates. Thus, why would she not have reviewed the Rose Garden statement which has been so controversial since it was made?

I think she DID review it, tried to protect Obama and had to retrench because it backfired on her.

Blaise on October 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM

You’re on crack, Obama had no ‘technique’, ‘ just his typical idiotic rambling (doubt you can call that ‘technique’) in his characteristic manner. See the answer to the high gas prices question :) worst intellectual midget could have come up with a better answer than that…but then you re so brainwashed yourself, or worse lobotomized, that it’s it’s hard to converse with you…

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Read his answer on the AK-47 question. That should have been a gimme for little Bammie, but he was all over the map with his answer, turning it into crap on the economy and schools. He was just rambling to run out his time.

slickwillie2001 on October 17, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I feel bad for make-up artists. After last nights debate Candy, Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory, there is going to be a major pancake #10 shortage. They need to go to radio in our HD era. Wow.

JeffinOrlando on October 17, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I watched the debate on big Fox, because I have that in HD and not Fox News. Shemp Smith was the host, and he looked like a corpse. His face seems to be getting sucked into his skull.

slickwillie2001 on October 17, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I hate the b@st@rd every bit as much as you do, but you can’t possibly be serious about that.

MelonCollie on October 17, 2012 at 10:44 AM

It was a metaphor based on the troll’s ‘mugged by Obama’ statement.

Obama did his ‘crime’ in the debate last night. And Mitt will get to reveal his ‘crime’ and lying in the final debate.

Is there a ‘I’m not being literal’ font?

SittingDeadRed on October 17, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Probably noted in the 1000+ comments already…but as I woman I was totally creeped out when the young girl was asking about equal pay and Obama went into a discussion about her access to abortion. I mean, if I had been that girl I would have crawled under the chair. Yes mom, the president is telling me about abortions right to my face.

mojowt on October 17, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Candy Crowley’s Benghazi Lifeline to Obama –

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/candy-crowleys-benghazi-lifeline-to-obama/

In an outrage destined for the history books, the moderator of last night’s hotly contested presidential debate uttered an untruth about President Obama’s deadly bungling in Libya after Obama overtly asked her on live television to support his dishonest version of it.

Pork-Chop on October 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

The sad thing is that I found it even more egregious that she shut Romney down on Fast and Furious as if it had nothing to do with gun control.

This will be lost to the history books thanks to her other screw-up.

Romney’s major issue last night is that he actually began each of his responses by answering the questions asked before getting to the big picture whereas Obama just ignored questions altogether in order to babble about anything he wanted to babble about.

SittingDeadRed on October 17, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Probably noted in the 1000+ comments already…but as I woman I was totally creeped out when the young girl was asking about equal pay and Obama went into a discussion about her access to abortion. I mean, if I had been that girl I would have crawled under the chair. Yes mom, the president is telling me about abortions right to my face.

mojowt on October 17, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I’m pretty sure that was Julia so I don’t think she minded.

SittingDeadRed on October 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM

CROWLEY: Let me give the president a chance.

That about says it all, doesn’t it?!?

ITguy on October 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Read his answer on the AK-47 question. That should have been a gimme for little Bammie, but he was all over the map with his answer, turning it into crap on the economy and schools. He was just rambling to run out his time.

slickwillie2001 on October 17, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Obama got schooled on almost every demon he tried to throw at Romney.

O: ‘You wanted the auto industry to go bankrupt’
Mitt: ‘Bankruptcy is basically a tool for financial restructuring and is exactly what you did to the auto industry.’

O: ‘Romney invests in China.’
Mitt: ‘I have a blind Trust, check your portfolio you invest in China too.’

O: ‘They hates wimmins!’
Mitt: ‘I had more women on my staff than any other state.’ (Although bringing up Obama Admin’s record with the women on the staff would have been more crushing).

O: ‘We’re producing more oil and gas than ever!’
Mitt: ‘No thanks to you; it’s down on Federal land. How many leases have you cut?’
O response: ‘Well here’s what happened…. mumble, mumble, mumble.’

O: ‘Romney has a 1 point plan – make his friends richer.’
Mitt: Well I don’t even remember Mitt responding to that because it was just a stupid campaign throw-away line with no thought or substance that wasn’t fooling anybody so why bother?

O: ‘I created 5 million jobs!’
Mitt: ‘Which is lower than the rate of population growth.’

Really, take out Obama’s interrupting and whining about time (when he was well ahead on time which Crowley should have noted) and several huge assists from the moderator and this was as big a slaughter as the last debate. Unfortunately he was visibly thrown off by the Rose Garden trap and that is what everybody is focused on.

Mitt left some on the table, but I can’t think of a single matter of substance that Obama had more facts on. Even on immigration Mitt managed to point out that Obama failed to pass his beloved Dream Act. Although he let him mumble about Republicans instead of pointing out that he had full control for 2 years.

SittingDeadRed on October 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Once you Republicans stop wetting yourselves over Candy Crowley, you’ll realize that the President was rope-a-doping Romney.

Figure it out:
After Romney brought up the Rose Garden speech, the President said twice: “Proceed”. He was inviting Romney to keep talking.

And before Crowley spoke, the President said: Get the transcript. He knew he had trapped Romney. He didn’t need any help from Crowley.

Everybody knows rope-a-dope, but Obama used a different Ali technique on Mitt last night:

“First you get him drunk, then you mug him.”

Romney got mugged.

chumpThreads on October 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Funny, that’s not what that Focus Group saw last evening.
Guess they got Mugged too, huh?

Amazing that you totally ignore the multitude of statements
the President and his surrogates have made about Libya for
weeks after the event itself….BUT, that is what the Left
does with every issue. Look for the ONE WORD in any speech to
hang their hat on….oh, and you may want to look at the
polling done on the ECONOMY in the debate. Romney annihilated
the President. I know this does not seep into that brain
of yours, but the ECONOMY usually decides elections.

ToddPA on October 17, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Many on here are missing the big picture. Obama is screwed. Clearly he didn’t call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism the next day and now even Crowley admits this. But more importantly, lets assume he knew as most of us thinking people did, that it was a terror attack the next day. Then he intentionally sent out Susan Rice to lie to the American people 5 days later when she said it had nothing to do with a terror attack and was just a result of a protest as a result of a video. Either way he is toast. Either he lied in the debate or he told a UN ambassador to lie on national tv.

Ta111 on October 17, 2012 at 1:10 PM

SittingDeadRed on October 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Great comment. Thanks for that.

ITguy on October 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM

tom on October 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That was a whole lot of nonsense.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM

tom on October 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That was a whole lot of nonsense.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM

You are a walking nonsense….the fact that you have no idea and no understanding whatsoever of what a focus group is and what this tye of research is there for, yet you inteject your opinion about ‘manipulation’ of focus group participants’ answers (lool :) – says everything that one wants to know about you and your faux ‘expertise’ in just about everything under the sun…

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Obama is not afraid of the Bengazi comment biting him because he plans on bombing some tents in Libia before the next debate on foreign policy. He set that up with his comment about getting those responsible.

Republican better start talking about the likelihood of a “retaliation strike” as an October surprise before it happens. It probably wont matter because Obama will just say that he is offended by any suggestion that he sought out justice for Ambassador Stevens murder as a political ploy.

AverageJoe on October 17, 2012 at 5:10 PM

jimver on October 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM

A link just for you

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12