Hey, let’s not “swift boat” Obama over Benghazi or something

fine, be outraged, still, the Benghazi attack line failed, [because] MSM is ignoring and no matter how much right wing media and blogosphere cry about it, they will still ignore it, because[therefore] its a overused, overextended attack line.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM

i have my own opinion about this episode, it was a mistake, probably organizational, made by the administration. they also screwd up a little the media message after the event. ok, that is it! keeping this issue alive days to election is a campaign partisan effort, that so happens to have failed as the msm collectively rolled out its middle finger to the GOP.
connecting this to godlessness? that just weird.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 8:43 PM

A little bit of editing for clarification, as Nathor is undisputably correct that (a) the MSM are ignoring the issue; (b) the administration made a mistake (many more than just one); (c) they screwed up the media message (big time, not just a little).

Nathor thinks failure equals “losing the attention of the MSM”.

When the MSM controls the messages received by most voters, smothering an attack may create a perception that it has failed; however, alternate media are reaching more people every year, and have forced accurate information into public awareness with great affect (Dan Rather’s memo; John Kerry’s actual military record) despite the attempts of the MSM to banish it from consideration. Add Facebook and Twitter, and the collective attention-span of the MSM no longer determines whether a political “attack” is a success or a failure.

We won’t actually know if the Republican “attack” failed until next week; because, ultimately, in an election, success and failure are defined by who gets the most votes.

So, is the Republican “attack” having an affect on voters’ choices?

Anecdotally, yes, per a couple of posts from a die-hard Democrat no longer supporting Obama (longish, but worth reading, as are the original posts):

Nobody in America wants a war. That’s why Romney isn’t campaigning on the issues I’ve raised here. He’s campaigning on the economy, on getting rid of the crippling new entitlements that Obama has established so that we don’t go bankrupt.

Romney is campaigning on the promise that the 47% who pay no taxes might, if they want to, improve their incomes until they do pay taxes; or if they are truly unable to work, he will help grow the economy and reform the government so that there are enough taxpayers to maintain the safety net for them.

Only by keeping a strong, free economy can the 47% continue to have the benefits of government without paying income taxes to sustain it. So it’s in the self-interest of all Americans, for economic reasons alone, to support Romney.

But if the economy were the only issue, we could probably survive four more years of Obama; economic recovery from his ideological mistakes would be harder and more expensive, but it could still be done.

However, Obama’s ideological decision to lose the war is one that cannot be undone four years from now. (skip)
Make no mistake: We can pretend this election is about the economy, but the primary responsibility of the President of the United States is the safety of the American people, and Barack Obama has proven to us, without any doubt, that he is not even interested in carrying out that duty.

Our dead Libyan ambassador is a witness to that. Obama’s apology to the assassins, his failure to defend our values, his refusal to support our allies — these are also witnesses.

All great nations fall eventually. And with rare exceptions, great nations fall when they have decided to stop protecting themselves; when they have lost faith in themselves.

So we had two solid weeks of the Obama administration, including Obama himself, putting forth the “narrative” (fancy word for “spin”) that the attacks were a spontaneous outburst in response to a provocative video made in America.

But when, in the debate, Romney points out the huge discrepancy between the uniform public statements of the Obama administration and the actual facts, which were known to them from the first day onward, Obama — and the fawning media — accused Romney of lying.

All because the word “terror” occurred somewhere in one statement Obama made. As if that single use of the word somehow erased two weeks of lies. (skip) Democrats can lie, lie, lie — a barrage of lies and slanders — and when they are caught, their toadies in the media make a few excuses and move on. “That’s an old story,” they say immediately.

Republican errors and cover-ups are never an “old story.” The media never lets go. But Democratic errors and cover-ups become an “old story” while the ink is still wet.

The war with Islamic terrorists is already underway and has been for decades; Obama’s policies will not end that war, they will merely make it more likely that we will lose it.

So even if Obama had not lied to cover up his decision not to support American diplomatic personnel in the terrorist attack in Benghazi, he would still be a dangerous man to leave in command of America’s defense.

The single most important task of the American President is not health care. It is not economic “fairness.”

The single most important task of the American President is protecting America from its enemies, and Obama is a complete failure — by his own choice, and as a matter of policy.

AesopFan on November 3, 2012 at 9:49 PM

an article like this:
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/late-voting
is 10 times more effective in convincing ppl like me to vote for romney than any partisan media noise machine.

nathor on November 3, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Not too sure what part of the article you found convincing, except for the rather universal agreement that “Romney gets things done” but you have to be in favor of what he wants to do to find that a positive trait, and the author you linked didn’t seem really quite sure (either about what he himself wanted and what he thought Romney would do).

I found this snip of his ruminations more than a little disquieting, though (emphasis added):

And another thing. He strikes me as being rather normal, which is unusual for a president. in my lifetime, I have seen some crazy weird characters in the Oval Office. Richard Nixon, who was a pretty effective president, had a monster mean streak and astonishing disregard for the Constitution. Lyndon Johnson hid an entire war from the American people until we were in too deep, desperately fearful that he would be accused of “losing” South Viet Nam. I have seen what happens when such men get enormous power, and I never worry about President Obama that way.

Even for a confessed low-information voter, that’s really low-info.

AesopFan on November 4, 2012 at 12:07 AM