|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Post debateCrowley: Obama's Teleprompter Substitute Nidra Poller ... From my observation point here in Paris in the middle of the night, the whole setup was skewed. Forgive me if I don't know the inner workings of the election committee that supposedly ensures a fair fight but I am wondering how in the world they could organize a Town Hall debate composed of 80 undecided voters. Does anyone know how the voters proved they were undecided? Was there a competition to eliminate the less undecided in favor of the truly sincerely undecided? Did they have some kind of test to root out the secretly decided? ... Why did they all look like props? ... It sounded like a first grade teacher had handed out the questions, matching them up to Johnny, Mary, Alvin, Chris and Rosina on the basis of some silly notion of identity. Where is this election committee coming from? What is this kindergarten concept of objectivity? Put together eighty people who say they are undecided and all the questions will be equally fair and advantageous to each candidate. Close your eyes and take one moderator from any TV channel -- oh my goodness, it's Candy Crowley from CNN and she's a woman -- and, because she is called the moderator she will moderate. As if that weren't enough, Candy Crowley intervened from the very first exchange, like a mother prompting her little boy who forgot his spiel or maybe doesn't want to brag about his accomplishments. The pattern was set: each candidate would give his answer to the (elementary) question, Candy would call on Barack and throw him some talking points, he would take the cue and do a little performance, and when Mitt Romney tried to do his rebuttal Candy would say that's enough, let's go to the next question... Which brings us to Benghazi. ... The teleprompter-moderator -- who knew the questions in advance -- and had apparently reviewed and memorized President Obama's September 12th Rose Garden talk, intervened to swat down Governor Romney as he looked the president in the eyes and said "You called it an act of terror?" She grabbed the ball from Obama's hands and slam dunked it! And the audience applauded. Why in the world did they applaud? I thought they were undecided ergo objective. Why didn't they emit a collective gasp in horror at Crowley's totally unacceptable intervention in the debate?... I viewed the video this morning. It prefigures the spin that followed. The incident is called a tragedy not a terror attack. The president criticizes those who denigrate a religion, not those who murder an American ambassador. He pretends that Libyan forces helped, tried to protect, brought the personnel to a safe house, and brought Ambassador Stevens' body to the hospital where he died. He promises to find out who did it and bring them to justice. In other words, it was a crime not an act of terror. Later, referring to the 9/11 commemoration ceremonies, he claimed that no act of terror against the United States goes unpunished. This was a reference to the elimination of Osama bin Laden. When the president had said what would be his last word before flying off to the fundraiser, a journalist called out: "Was it an act of war?" But the president wasn't taking questions. So it will be up to American voters to answer that one. www.americanthinker.com From what I can see, the 'Benghazi' question was actually one of the preplanned 'gotcha' moments designed to aid Obama and built into the program. They knew that brief word combination was buried among the reams and reams of Obama comments and knew what the reasonable and expected response from Romney would be. The question was actually phrased to elicit that desired response. Crowley was already cocked and ready to spring the trap. It's easy to set an ambush when you control the terrain. |
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 11:40 |
2-1, for the good side. |
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 11:53 |
|
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 17:17 |
Romney: Gov't does not create jobs |
||
|
It was also quite interesting that the supposed 'neutral' and 'undecided' audience clapped and cheered when the semantic trap was sprung. |
||
|
Who trapped who? Romney trapped Obama in the Second Debate Sally Zelikovsky Many in the punditry need to re-visit the section of the debate last night between Romney and Obama addressing the Libya question. Too many are saying Romney flubbed it, his answer was flustered and a lost opportunity to strike back. This was not my first impression watching the debate so I went back and watched it again. After reviewing the footage I think many in the punditry missed what really happened. Obama finished his 2+ minute answer to the initial question with "You know that I mean what I say." Romney then gave his 2+ minute response starting out saying many days passed before we knew if the Benghazi tragedy was a terror attack or resulted from a spontaneous demonstration. He asserted that we KNOW it was a terror attack but took a long time before the American People were told that and it was either misleading or they didn't know and, if the latter, we have to ask why. So far so good. Romney then continued that after 5 days, the Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice went on TV and said the attack was because of the spontaneous demonstrations. Romney asked again: "How could we not know?" He then recited how on the day following the death of Ambassador Stevens (which is the first time this has happened since 1979) when "apparently" we didn't know what happened, the President went to Vegas and the following day to Colorado for campaign events--which actions have symbolic and possibly material significance. He pointed out it was clear this was not a demonstration and called into question the President's Middle East policy. Romney then used this opportunity to go into some detail about Obama's failed Middle East policy. Candy Crowley then asked the President about the buck stopping at his desk and he launched into his tirade about being offended by Romney calling him out the Sunday morning after the murders and said "The day after, I stood in the Rose Garden and told people this was an act of terror." Bam! For a lawyer -- any lawyer--even one who never practiced like Romney -- this is the stuff movies are made of. This is the kind of admission we are always sniffing out and Obama, a lawyer himself who was obviously trying his hand at Clintonian hair splitting, offered it up knowing full well that's not what he said. And he got Candy to go along with him. Bad Candy. But before the pundits continue to beat up on Romney for lost opportunities and a flubbed answer, Romney pounded Obama on his Rose Garden claims. With deadly seriousness he looked at Obama and said "I think it's interesting the President just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.'" Obama interjected: "That's what I said." Bam! Romney continued: "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror; it was not a spontaneous demonstration. Is that what you are saying?" Obama haughtily invited Romney: "Please proceed Governor." Bam! Romney responded: "I wanna make sure we get that for the record because it took him 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." Bam! At which point Obama called for Candy to "Get the transcript" and she came to his rescue ruling that Obama did say it was an act of terror--applause--and that Romney was also correct that it took 14 days for clarification--applause. Romney, with a bit of stuttering, says: "The administration indicated that this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction....It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group....On Sunday...the Ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction." Bam! Bam! Obama--desperately wanting to change the subject--announced "I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy...." as Candy tells them that she wants to move on. And the President concedes "Ok, I'm happy to do that, too.... I just wanna make sure all these wonderful folks are gonna have a chance to get some of their questions answered." While Romney might not have had 100% alpha male domination over the answer, what he did that seems to be overlooked by way too many, was to expose the President as a liar and not just a misspeaker on an issue everyone is talking about. And, this is not just conjecture or spin. We have the ironclad transcript and video of Obama asserting this was a spontaneous demonstration--directly contradicting his statement at the debate. Yet, he brazenly reaffirmed at the debate that he said it was an act of terror While it is risky to ask such a question, Romney got him to repeat his admission several times--so he can't say he mispoke--and can therefore EASILY impeach his credibility with the actual transcript and video of the Rose Garden statement. Romney wasn't just phumphering around. He was onto something average folks (jurors, if you will) see because, well, it isn't hard to find--it's right there in the open and completely verifiable--this guy is lying! Contrary to the punditry's possibly legitimate concerns that this wasn't the smoothest answer and that Romney muddled rather than clarified the issue, Romney did mention the 14 days, the repeated assertion by the President and Susan Rice that Benghazi was not a terrorist attack but the result of a spontaneous demonstration and drove home the fact that this President chose to "go on with the show" and continue with the campaign rather than give his full attention to the pressing matter of our Ambassador and 3 others being slaughtered. If I'm Karl Rove or the Romney campaign, I'm running ad after ad of Obama at the debate declaring that he said in the Rose Garden it was an act of terror. Then, I'd show his actual Rose Garden statement and speckle it with all his other statements and those of Susan Rice and Hillary reiterating that it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration because of the video. Then I'd show Romney giving Obama a chance to retract the admission, while he reaffirms it instead saying "That's what I said." Then, I'd finish with Obama saying: "You know that I mean what I say." And, while this might not be the answer all the Monday morning quarterbacks would have liked and has experts like Daniel Pipes, Ben Stein and George Will -- among others -- shaking their heads, it's an answer that has very long legs and will reach and resonate with independents. www.americanthinker.com |
||
|
Who Was That Guy? Bryce Buchanan I'm concerned. There was someone debating Governor Romney last night who said he loved free enterprise. He loved oil. He loved coal. He loved natural gas and pipelines. He said he was a huge fan of small businesses and wanted to help them every way he could. This man said he was very concerned about the deficit. He thought it was important to make budgets to address that important issue. He was concerned about illegal immigration. If only he had had a majority in Congress he would have addressed those problems. On the Benghazi attack, he said that, right from the beginning, from the very first day, he told the American people that this was a terrorist attack. He had not misled the American people in any way. My concern is this: Who was that person, and what have they done with President Obama? www.americanthinker.com |
||
|
Maybe that's why MR didn't have a very good night at the debates this time (unlike #1 where he did). |
||
|
Romney obviously knows and understands this, he's lived it, but I don't think he's using the right word choices to convey this understanding. I'm honestly less interested in the semantic 'gotcha' games that some like to play and think are so important than what the next President actually does. Romney obviously knows what needs to be done or not done by government to allow businesses to thrive and to get people back to work. I honestly think he would succeed. |
||
|
|
||
|
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 21:06 |
|
||
|
Romney has been far more specific and detailed than Obama is. I suspect that's because he has a far greater understanding of economic principles than Obama could hope to learn. If you listen carefully to his actual words you'll realize that Obama almost always talks in platitudes and generalities unless he's reading it back to you from a teleprompter. Hell, a TV news anchor does that!! Obama reminds me of the guy who tries to bluff his way through a conversation with a combat vet about being in combat when he was actually stateside working in a motor t yard. You know what I mean... |
||
|
Thumper It's just the same as Chaz trying to convince us he was a CEO in business and yet says things like: "... Romney said numerous times that he would create jobs. His final remarks concluded with the remark that "the government doesn't create jobs." Why would he spend so much time saying he will create jobs as prez, when he also just said he couldn't. " If you don't know the answer to that, you haven't been in business. (imho) |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
chaz I say what I'm thinking. I "stir the pot" to get others to say what they are thinking. In your case, it takes a LOT of stirring to get anything to boil. Usually that fails. Either you do little thinking or you are very shy about sharing your thoughts. |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
chaz5 17-Oct-12, 19:52 ... Romney said numerous times that he would create jobs. His final remarks concluded with the remark that "the government doesn't create jobs." Why would he spend so much time saying he will create jobs as prez, when he also just said he couldn't. Maybe that's why MR didn't have a very good night at the debates this time (unlike #1 where he did). chaz5 17-Oct-12, 20:22 ... good response ... but I wish Mitt would be a bit more explicit about what he intends to do, other than these 'just trust me' presentations of his. If one has already made up their mind, OK; but, not every one has. A nit pick of semantics and a reiteration of one of the lib's arguing tools doesn't mean you're engaging Chaz. Obama claims to have created jobs and intends to create more... nothing. Obama gives little else but bromides, platitudes and generalities, again nothing. What you claim constitutes 'honest dialogue', objective evaluation and mutual respect is apparently different and less restrictive when it comes to libs. |
||
|
dmaestro 18-Oct-12, 10:08 |
|
||
|
|
||
|
Thumper ... #2 same thing. I'm honestly looking for what MR stands for. For those who have made up their minds, OK; but, not everyone has, including me (although, so far, I do fear Mitt's "just trust me" kinds of responses ... and I fear a return to what may have caused the recession in the first place). Regarding Obama, his record is disappointing versus original promises made ... yet, there has been some progress over the last 30 months or so. Enough? Prob'ly not, but there is a record. One topic we could discuss is whether to abandon these 'progressive remedies' in place for something unknown and unexplained ... or whether to tolerate a less-than-ideal movement in what could be the right direction. Please explain why you think these are not engaging topics. |
||
|
chaz You are ignoring the fact that unemployment is still at about 8% with this weeks "unexpected" gain in new filings. Employment is not getting better. There are still MILLIONS out of work. You ignore the fact that the number of people on food stamps has gone up by about 50% since BO. You ignore the fact that welfare just cost us a new record $1 TRILLION. You ignore that fact that this leader is NOT bringing Congress together and they WILL let the Bush tax rates expire, thus pushing us into a recession, if not depression. You ignore the fact that our credit rating has been DOWNGRADED... first time in history, under his watch. You ignore that we now have the largest DEBT in our history and it is growing by over $1.3 TRILLION per year because we are spending $1.3 TRILLION more than we earn. You ignore the fact that the Fed is printing money hand-over-fist which is simply devaluing our money, but allowing the government to continue paying our its' bribes to everyone. You ignore the declining race relations under the "Uniter-in-Chief" and so far have said NOTHING about Thumpers' posts on threats to kill MR when he wins. You ignore that the President (for whatever reason) chose to lie about Benghazi for two week before he caved and told the truth, even though he knew all along. And you say that is making progress? Most people are saying "Anything but BO". |
||
|
Do you believe that by saying; Romney just wants people to trust him while being unclear as you search in vain for what he stands for but fear he wants to 'return to' recession while claiming Obama's 'progressive remedies' are good and are heading in the 'right direction' though disappointing because they're not vigorous enough, you're providing a 'fair assessment of the debate'? Just a minute, let me get my boots on. |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
Thumper ... |
||
|
chaz The problem you seem wanting to forget is that he can not come to an arbitrary one-sided agreement on the specifics UNTIL he is President and then meets with the Dems. Together they negotiate the compromises and specifics. You see? Is that too difficult to understand, or are you simply wanting to joust? NOW... speaking of specifics... about ANY of the items I mentioned above... WHAT are the BO specifics on how he will fix those problems? Come on now... I gave you my best answer... what is your answer? |
||
|
Softy ... Mitt's 5 point plan is still a complete mystery ... it's hard to have high confidence for the unknowns and unexplained when it looks like election political rhetoric. I do imagine, however, in your defense, that what he "might" do is hard to explain until he knows the make-up of Congress and how much he'd have to jawbone whatever it is he wants to do. Good intentions? ... prob'ly. ... effective ... perhaps for some folks, not all. Virtually all of the issues you listed, we've discussed ... a lot. Most of your observations (debt is too high, unemployment is not going down fast enough, welfare and food stamps, etc. etc.) cannot be disagreed with per se ... the real question becomes which remedies does one trust more from information at hand. Some of the other points (e.g., assassinations), I don't know enough to comment, but BO has received his share of these too. Do you want to narrow your question down to one specific one we can discuss better than these generalities? |
||
|
chaz THAT is what you answer every time you don't have an answer. To recap our "conversation" I gave you as best an answer as I have for the specifics of MR plan. It didn't contain the specifics because I believe those specifics are to be determined with Democrats AFTER the election. Since you have been harping on getting specifics, I asked you to pick ANY of those topics and give the specifics that BO must have already provided for his solutions to those problems. After all, he has had four years to determine what they will be. Your answer is to ask me "if I have a specific question". You are seemingly unable to hold a conversation. (move along... nothing to see here) |
||
|
Softy ... You also enjoy ducking questions I've asked. That's OK; I understand you've already made your choices. |
