|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Here's your chance |
||
|
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 18:40 |
One thing |
||
|
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 18:51 |
Romney |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 20:16 |
Chaz |
||
|
Stinky ... |
||
|
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 20:40 |
Chaz |
||
|
|
||
|
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 20:45 |
Chaz |
||
|
Again, Romney seemed to go for more specifics as Obama fell back on the slow story telling angle and vague generalities, which is a sign of someone who can't relay many specifics and are trying to fill the time by running the clock. Though not a blowout like last debate, overall I give the win to Romney. |
||
|
|
||
|
anomalocaris 16-Oct-12, 20:57 |
Chaz In the transcript Obama never called the act in Libya an act of terror, he did however say that no act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation. I will give you alink that tells it better. Romney was exactly wrong and Obama wasn't exactly right in itself it was not a big deal. However the moderator jumping in to defend Obama made it look like a huge blow and it was actually one of the talking points after the debate. Blatant favoritism. |
||
|
by John Nolte 16 Oct 2012, 7:49 PM PDT We're done with the second presidential debate, but it was apparent 45 minutes in that between the questions Crowley chose and her handling of who was allowed to speak and when, that this debate was a total and complete setup to rehabilitate Barack Obama. If these are truly undecided voters, they're apparently undecided between Obama and the Green Party. Moreover, as I write this, Obama's already enjoyed four more minutes of speaking time than Romney. In a ninety-minute debate, that's a big deal. The lowest and most dishonest part of Crowley's disgraceful "moderation" was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama's side when the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration's lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as cover the claim that he had called the attack a "terrorist attack" on that very first day during his Rose Garden statement. Romney correctly disputed that. Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama's side and the crowd exploded. Here's what Obama said that day: 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. Context matters and the context here is that Obama connected this "act of terror" to … a mob action over a YouTube video -- not a deliberate terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be almost two weeks before he used it again. Let's not forget that Susan Rice said declaratively on the five Sunday shows four days later that it was NOT an act of terror. And during those two weeks the Obama administration lied like a rug. For Crowley to step in and attempt to correct Romney on a statement that is at best arguable, was completely out of line. The debate over this debate has only begun. |
||
|
Now the backtracking By: Erick Erickson 10/17/2012 01:09 AM One of the most talked about moments in tonight’s debate was when Candy Crowley “fact checked” Mitt Romney on Libya. Make no mistake, this was an attempt to cover for President Obama, who has been bleeding on the issue all week. However, when confronted about it after the debate, she started to backtrack. If she’d really cared about this–and it sounds like she knew about this as she was saying it during the debate–she would have corrected herself during the debate, when the people were still watching. EDIT: (via @seanmdav) Back on September 28th, Crowley was saying that the Obama administration needed to explain why they didn’t call what happened in Libya a terrorist attack. The CNN transcript tells all: The question I think too is what you asked and Peter King wouldn’t play, but the idea is why would you be so adamant? When most people look and said, well of course it’s a terrorist attack. I mean, they had you know large weaponry. It’s not something you bring to a protest. And now we’re finding out there might not even have been a protest at the time this attack took place. So I think there are lots of questions to be answered here that the administration is going to have to talk about. I’m betting the media’s not going to call her on this, and they’ll let her admission that Romney was essentially right about Libya slide as well. We have to make sure this kind of information gets out there. www.humanevents.com |
