October 16th, 2012

Tonight’s debate

I have an unusually busy day, so although I’ll be back to the blog later today, this post and the one below it will be short.

But here’s a thread to discuss tonight’s upcoming debate—or anything you want.

93 Responses to “Tonight’s debate”

  1. Steve Ducharme Says:

    “Busy day” huh? Come on now Neo, you’ve already admitted on a few occasions that you get a lot of anxiety watching debates. And I admit that I do too. Especially when it’s so monumentally important as is the case tonight. But that’s no reason to go run and hide now!

    LOL! Just a good natured tease..

  2. M of Hollywood Says:

    me? I can’t wait. wish it were 6PM.

    Since there are so many astute people here, I wish one of us would set up a quick chat room where we could go to chat during it. I used to know how to do that in the old IRQ days, but now that things are simple, I have lost the technique LOL. Can someone do that for us? I mean, twitter is great, but Neo has amassed such a smart and trustworthy group here. . .

  3. FenelonSpoke Says:

    I don’t think I can watch tonight’s debate although I watched the first two. I had to leave the room several times during the last one because Biden’s behavior was so boorish. I am afraid there will be more plants at this than at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden and that Romney won’t get a fair shake from Candyland.

  4. Harold Says:

    While I’m keyed up I don’t think that Romney has to put in the same spectacular performance he put in for the first debate. Part of the response to that was that for four long years the Pravda press had been running interference for Obama and this was the first time anyone had directly confronted him.

    I think if Romney puts in a credible performance it will be enough. The people who changed after the first debate aren’t going to change back, they’ve already seen who Romney is, they’ve all made the necessary psychological shift. Of course I’d be really grateful if Romney puts in a really terrific performance and Obama falls on his face again. But that’s probably asking for too much.

  5. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Alas we already know tomorrow’s headlines in the MSM:
    Obama Scores Big While Opponent What’s His Name Insults G-d.

    And the follow up story:

    Tonight President Obama radiating an inner light so intense that it stupefied all those seeking not only salvation but enlightenment engaged in a one sided, lop sided debate with a former businessman with unexplained millions in cash who is under scrutiny for tax evasion. There was a general agreement that the businessman was both drunk, insane and too aroused to think clearly because of his addition to internet porn. Indeed he had barely started speaking when an outraged and offended objective and unbiased moderator shot him in both kneecaps. Fortunately this did not stop President Obama from making his points about how his now recognized divine intervention saved the economy, successfully ended the war on terror, ended the unnecessary wars in Iraq and Libya, and won freedom, peace and justice for the entire world for millenniums to come and that he needs four more years to complete his work.

    Many in the audience requested forgiveness for previously denying the President and asking if it were too late to be saved. Unfortunately the President was preoccupied with informing the people of his further plans for the planet’s redemption and could not answer their questions in a timely matter. It is the opinion of this objective journalist that the President did lay his hands upon the lost ones and forgave them after he won the debate.

    He also noted that the former businessman in collusion with President Bush was responsible for the murder of our Ambassador in Benghazi and the subsequent confusion.

  6. Conrad Says:

    The MSM would love to write that kind of glowing, pro-Obama wrap-up, but the beauty of debates is that the media generally doesn’t get the ultimate say as to who won and who lost. The viewers do.

    A good illustration of this was the VP debate. The media’s immediate inclination was to call Biden the winner based on his unrelenting aggressiveness (or however they characterized it). The chosen narrative was “Biden stopped the bleeding.” But by the next day it was clear that a majority of viewers saw it differently — saw that Biden had made a fool of himself and embarrassed the ticket.

    Tonight, the MSM punditocracy can say all they want about how “Obama got his mojo back,” but unless the people watching at home agree with that assessment, it won’t do the president any good.

  7. Harold Says:

    “Tonight President Obama radiating an inner light so intense that it stupefied all those seeking not only salvation but enlightenment…”

    So that explains what I was seeing. I thought my TV reception was flacky. Tonight I’ll put on my sunglasses.

  8. davisbr Says:

    @M of Hollywood at 11:35 am …I wish one of us would set up a quick chat room where we could go to chat during it …Can someone do that for us?”

    Sure, M-of-Hollywood.


    If anyone is interested, I’ve setup a quickie chatroom (virtual room) on Chatzy: Neoneocon Chats.

    You’re all invited. (I dunno if I’ll be able to be stay active, but I’m logged in now, and I’ll check in later.)

    Click the link to enter. Let me know if you have any issues (not that I’m professing any great expertise at fixing things if they get broken lol).

  9. texexec Says:

    I tried to go to the chat room…a password is required.

    What is it?

  10. davisbr Says:

    @texexec 2:02 pm …a password is required. What is it?

    Oops. Sorry texexec. Senior moment. I forgot I’d created one.

    p/w = romney …all lowercase.

  11. texexec Says:

    That worked, davisbr. Thanks! Hope we have some folks on here tonight.

  12. Artfldgr Says:

    “Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology.

    “The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

    “Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

    “What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.

    “The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans.

    “Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

    All James Carville…

    and it confirms what i said.. the real leaders know it dont work, know its a fake, and so on, but that it gives them power

    true believers are their next level whose fanatical belief is what gets the herd to move… hard to tell which is which from the outside. but if they turn on a dime without care, they are like carville, if they cant and wonder and such, then they are true believers thinking for a second..

  13. Artfldgr Says:

    i wish they played this before the debate!!!

    OBAMA: All countries are close allies!!


  14. blert Says:

    Folks, the ‘tell’ of the Wan’s debate ‘prep’ is that he’s STILL hitting the links and bringing the pizza. (!)

    So much for debate prep.


    He’s counting on the Commie Nostrum Network manetee to pull his dhow across the pond.


    You’d be forgiven if you thought that he was self-sabotaging his re-election campaign — in a Reactive-Dependent sort of way.


    And there’s the need to spend/ grift the MSM with all of his Chinese payola — at least $ 100,000,000 — no scandal here — move along — nothing to see.

  15. Baklava Says:


  16. Baklava Says:

    Obama couldn’t even win the debate if he just says, “Mitt, I’ve come around to your view on everything”.


  17. Baklava Says:

    A123 goes bankrupt.

    Central Planning is the problem. Money should go to people who have a plan work hard and have sound principles in their product.

    Money should flow by individuals not a central planner.

  18. Baklava Says:

    Alan Colmes on O’Reilly, a million green jobs have been created by this admin.

    Put down the crack pipe Alan!!!

    O’Reilly asked for an example success.
    Alan says “Diamond Green Diesel”

    Let’s watch that one go bankrupt!!!

  19. rickl Says:

    Apparently, there was a magnitude 4.6 earthquake in southern Maine, which was felt over a wide area.

    M4.6 – 5km W of Hollis Center, Maine

    That would have been at 7:12 pm EDT, if I have the time conversion right.

  20. rickl Says:

    Looks like it’s been downgraded to 4.0.

    If you’re in the affected area, you can submit a report to the USGS. Did You Feel It? Tell Us!

    Even if you didn’t feel it, you can still submit a report. It’s a valid data point, and the more data points the better. I sent in a report after last year’s Virginia quake, which I felt in Pennsylvania. It’s the only earthquake I’ve ever felt.

  21. parker Says:

    Now, after HRC ‘mans up’ Obama appears ready to admit the buck stopped somewhere near the Oval Office (Nevada?): http://tinyurl.com/9w762n6

    The LOL line is “The president is his own harshest critic.”

  22. Baklava Says:

    Beer Me

  23. Baklava Says:

    My widescreen TV is not an advantage right now. Wow she is wide. Redskins might need a new center this season.

  24. Baklava Says:

    Clapping like a walrus. OK I’ll stop.

  25. Baklava Says:

    nObama is looking very petty and foolish so far. Is it just me?

  26. Baklava Says:


  27. Baklava Says:

    high drama

  28. Baklava Says:


    3.5 million more women living in poverty today!

  29. Baklava Says:


    Romney was focused on each of the questions

  30. csimon Says:

    I can’t stand this — I’m screaming at the television at the top of my lungs!!

    Obama lies and he lies a bout Romney lying! Audacious, yes. Making me crazy? YES!!!!

    Why is Romney not focusing on the GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY which is what will pay for tax cuts. Why not tell the truth about how much the economy has shrunk under Obama.

    When talking about budgets and math not working (per Obama), why isn’t Romney speaking about the President never having had a budget approved and in place since he’s been President because every one he has proposed has been defeated unanimously in both the Senate and House — not even his fellow Democrats would approve his proposed budgets!!!!

    Why won’t Romney point out that he had nothing to do with ending the Iraq war. Bush did that! HE put in place the surge (as requested by officers on the ground, not a semi-surge trying to do something that would satisfy officers in Afghanistan but not make his voting base go nuts). And Bush negotiated the time for pulling out. The only thing Obama had to do with it is that the timing fell during his Presidency.

    Arghhhh! And it doesn’t stop.

    Now illegal immigrants: why not call the President on not enforcing federal law, and worse, sueing states for enforcing the federal law and maintain their own economic sustainability. Spending more govt. money to sue our States — for doing the job the President refuses to. His oath includes upholding the laws of this country.

    And for G-d’s sake, call the President on every single lie he tells?!!! Damn!

  31. parker Says:

    BTW Artfldgr, those are great (and telling) quotes from Carville. Thanks for shedding light on Carville who has long mystified me.

  32. parker Says:


    Romney is doing what he needs to do. He is calm, focused, and projects the strength of his character*. Its important to realize who is the audience. The audience is the 2-5% of the voters who voted for BHO in 2008 that have doubts about doubling down on their 2008 choice. Romney, with his performance tonight, and in the first debate, won over 80% of those voters.

    *Which I have come to admire.

  33. csimon Says:

    Candy Crowley has defied the Debate Commission ( I’m sure she figured out that once she had the mike in her hands, what could they do?)

    She has tried her best to control the answers, but Obama ignores her every time and just keeps yapping. He obviously wants people to know he’s awake tonite. But throwing in hiring teachers on an assault weapon question?

    And Crowley’s bias came thru clearly @ beginning when she cut Romney off, not allowing him to reply to Obama(‘s lies). But I think she caught herself after about 20 minutes (or a director or producer did).

    Oh, and now the Obama line about “Romney’scompany pioneering outsourcing jobs overseas.”

    Take back what I said about Crowley. After Obama’s lie, she cut Romney off from setting record straight.
    And then on to next question (Surprise!)

  34. southpaw Says:

    A few Missed opportunities on Romney’s part. Disappointing but not too bad. A solid draw, but since the president wasn’t a limp d&$k, it will seem Obama won.

  35. Curtis Says:

    Candy did dandy. Can’t blame her. Can’t blame Obama for lyin well, which he did, especially to end the debate charaterizing himself as the greatest lover of capitalism and self-reliance evah.

    This was a non-event except for two Romney answers: The answer about his hiring women as Gov of Mass. He took that question and stuffed it. But then his swing and a miss at the softball Libya question. What a missed opportunity. Time to bring the heat and some outrage-exactly what Obama did. Huge escape for Obama on that issue at least for now. Maybe there will be some clarification in the new media, maybe even in the enemedia.

    Romney also did well on the immigration issue.

    Seems like Romney did well on the weak areas and only so so on the strong ones because he repeated the talking points and didn’t knock the obvious one down. Kind of like Ewing missing the lay up. Ouch.

    We’ll see in the next week whether the media can staunch the Romney tide.

  36. Baklava Says:

    I was pleased with Romney’s performance.

    I was pleased that Obama admitted to wanting to raise taxes during a week economy.

    There is a clear choice in November

  37. texexec Says:

    Watching Hannity now…Frank Luntz’s focus group was VERY positive about Romney.

    Big reason? He looked and sounded more presidential.

  38. Curtis Says:

    In terms of votes, I think this was a Romney win. His likeability didn’t decrease; it increased. Obama’s? Obama’s likeability can’t do anything but decrease as a rule, and his performance showed him angrier, interrupting more, talking more, postured defensively: all characteristics of a slight to moderate desperation. And desperation is the opposite of confidence, a leading factor of likeability.

    Obama may have energized his base, which energy will dissipate if it does not mean alead in the polls, but he didn’t gain any new votes, especially with women and Hispanics.

    Strategically, a fair win for Romney.

  39. Baklava Says:


  40. Baklava Says:

    There were two women in Luntz group who were sputtering about Romney taking away their rights and moving women backwards.

    Luntz asked the group if Romney was anti-woman and the group said “NO!”.

  41. csimon Says:

    I felt same as southpaw.

    But just watched some of Frank Luntz focus group and a lot of previous Obama voters swung to Romney. And a lot of them — most — called Obama on his many lies. I wasn’t sure a lot of people would catch it 1) because they were lies that have been repeated endlessly by Obama campaign and the obliging MSM, and 2) because at least 4 times Candy Crowley cut off Romney from replying to what Obama said and disputing his lies.

    I faulted the Governor for missed opportunities, but I also realize how much information and sheer volume of facts that are swimming around in their heads, not to mention the pressure. And this format with the walking around doesn’t really allow for making notes re: what to reply on, and then following thru, espec. when Crowley cuts off and moves to another question on completely different subj. and then, if she came back to subj. later in another question, how can one remember what it is that you wanted to say because you’re so busy focusing on the answer to latest question.

    Hope the focus group is as indicative of the population’s sentiment as was the group for last Presidential debate.

    I checked in on MSNBC to see their reactions, but two sound bites — one from Rachel Maddow and one from Chris Matthews — and I couldn’t take anymore. Might just as well have listened to David Axelrod. They are all so full of it!

    One interesting thing, in focus group, 2 women, obviously Obama supporters, spoke of their fear that the “slick” Romney would strip women of ALL their rights. (They should only spend a month or so in Afghanistan — or any Muslim country — and know what no women’s rights are. Hello! Have they even heard of the 14-yr. old who was just shot in Afghanistan because she thought women and girls should be able to go to school??!!) Anyway, interestng again, was a third woman (who decided on Romney tonite) and piped up: I don’t know where all this women’s rights stuff comes from. He’s never said anything about stripping women’s rights. Where does this come from?

    Guess she doesn’t listen to too many Obama ads, Stephanie Cutter, other Obama operators & MSM.
    But we all have had our share of the “War on Women,” garbage, I’m sure.

  42. csimon Says:

    Baklava —
    Same subject. I just write too much!

  43. Baklava Says:

    CBS Poll:

    Romney 65
    Obama 35


  44. Baklava Says:

    csimon. It was interesting to hear a woman say to those two women where are you getting that from 🙂

  45. Curtis Says:

    Well, luck is on Romney’s side too.

    Libya will be tee’d up for the last debate and both Anderson Cooper and Candy Crowly are clarifying Obama’s Libya press conference to confirm the substance of Romney’s assertion.

  46. Pat Says:

    There was one point in the debate where I thought Romney lost the plot but he came through. Fast and Furious is now a campaign issue.

    Overall, I thought Mitt came across as a man with a plan and Barack came across as clueless.

  47. Curtis Says:

    It couldn’t really get any sweeter.

    Romney is right and Obama (and Crowley) are wrong. Obama (say it again Candy) lied and Crowley just couldn’t help herself.

    How could it get any sweeter? Liar and lying fact checker both proved liars while Romney looks picked on (which he was!).

    So, Romney’s weakest answer leads to the truth and another truth.

    Is it Romney who is lucky or that Obama’s luck which has run out?

    Also, re-viewing his answers on the economy, I’m much more impressed realizing that the talking points are education that is education by repetition.

    And then meaningful Ohio and coal!

    I could be looking and finding fools gold, but I hope there’s a real nugget in there.

    We’ll see.

  48. kolnai Says:

    Baklava –

    Those CBS numbers were for the economy, not the debate as a whole (which Obama, by the voters’ reckoning, won).

    Not that that should be comforting to Obama, but let’s not hype this up too much. Even I don’t think Romney won 65-35; more like 51-49, maybe. (Judging performance, not substance).

    The problem was that Romney lost his cool at times, as gcotharn pointed out in the chat room. He was getting baited by Obama, and he took the bait a couple of times when he shouldn’t have.

    Still, it wasn’t bad by any means, just not a clear victory. And that’s fine.

    What I’m really, really, really steamed about is Candy Crowley. I know everyone knows this already, but I have to say it once more to remind myself that it really happened: she FACT-CHECKED Romney in the middle of a debate! I… just…. want to kick something and break it, put it back together, then break it again.

    Almost every question was based on leftist assumptions. Only in a world where our Soviet media reigns could we have a Town Hall debate with an undecided – sorry, “undecided” – audience in a state that is a blue as my face when I hold my breath waiting for Obama to say something true.

    I hate the media. I hate them with an unhealthy passion. Quite un-Christian of me, but there it is.

    After we win this election, never again do we agree to this crap. It’s over. We need to start finding our cajones and fight for the culture. Our having lost the culture is why we can never get a fair debate in the first place (with the legitimately noble exception of Jim Lehrer, a weird guy who, unbeknownst to everyone, had some kind of Buddhist approach to moderating debates).

  49. Baklava Says:


    I saw that and came back to correct it.


    Townhall presidential debates should be banned 🙂

    It brings the debate level down. Jim Lehrer nailed it and Martha injected herself too much.


  50. Curtis Says:

    Try being Israel, but then Israel is not Christian. They can hate their enemies.

  51. kolnai Says:

    Curtis –

    For the purposes of my attitude to the media, then, “I am Israel” 🙂

  52. Steve Says:


    “Those CBS numbers were for the economy, not the debate as a whole (which Obama, by the voters’ reckoning, won).”

    Yes but that is good news because the economy is the most important issue to voters in this election.

  53. kolnai Says:

    Steve –

    I agree. The only thing slightly worrying about the disparity between ALL of the internals and the judgment of who won the debate (Romney won all the internals, Obama won the debate) is that people are perhaps still being far, far too indulgent to The One.

    It stands to reason: if the economy is so important to people, and they judged that Romney blew Obama away on the subject, then ipso facto Romney should have won the debate handily.

    But that isn’t how it played out in their minds, which are pretty clearly jam-packed with cognitive dissonance. Ace thinks that it’s not really dissonance, but that people are sophisticated enough to distinguish between style and substance. I hope he’s right. I fear he’s not.

    Anyway, the number is good. It just didn’t “do” what it should have done – hand Romney a clear victory. Or maybe it did and we’re not seeing it until election day. Who knows. Obama does very weird things to people’s judgment.

  54. M J R Says:

    kolnai wrote (12:47 AM), “Almost every question was based on leftist assumptions. Only in a world where our Soviet media reigns could we have a Town Hall debate with an undecided – sorry, “undecided” – audience in a state that is a blue as my face when I hold my breath waiting for Obama to say something true.”

    I am given to understand that the audience, from whom the questions were solicited, was composed of (supposedly) undecided voters who had voted for The One in 2008 but were now (supposedly) undecided.

    That would explain why the questions generally took on a left-leaning tinge. (The Libya question would be one exception, were there any others?) The questioners were essentially either left-leaning or clueless in 2008, and my guess is that not terriby much changed in that regard for 2012.

  55. RandomThoughts Says:

    I was particularly pleased that Romney brought up Fast and Furious after the question on assault weapons.

    While Obama scored a few blows against Romney’s personal wealth, there simply was no way for him to avoid the in-your-face failures of his own job performance over the past four years. Overall, the only ones likely to be impressed by Obama’s debate performance are his already loyal supporters. Independents, not so much.

    kolnai, RE: I hate the media. I hate them with an unhealthy passion. Quite un-Christian of me, but there it is. There’s nothing particularly un-Christian about despising a collective dedicated to the distortion of truth, promotion of immorality, and denigration of people of faith. Today’s news media is one step away from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

  56. texexec Says:

    I think the talking heads and some of us commenters are paying too much attention to little points made or lost by the two debaters. It’s like score is being kept in a boxing match. Too much attention is paid to the WORDS each man uses and not enough to the overall impression each leaves…including body language and facial expressions. Often more is said by those two things than all the words used.

    Obama looked angry, defensive, not confident, not in control of his emotions. Did you notice his blink rate when Romney was raking him across the coals about the economy?

    Did you hear him stutter out his answers and responses. An expert will have a hay day with his body language and facial expressions. For the first time in his life, he’s being questioned about what he says and believes. His discomfort with that shows.

    Romney came across as courteous but firm, sincere, earnest, strong, confident, knowledgeable, steeped in the facts of what he was saying…in other words…presidential.

    That’s why he’s doing well in the polls now. People pick up on that.

    Foreign policy is important but Romney will do better with that in the next debate. In the meantime, he’s winning on the issue that people REALLY care about…the economy.

    In the next debate, Romney should bring up:

    1. Obama’s support of the wrong person in Costa Rica.

    2. His open mike remark to the president of Russia.

    3. His dismantling of the missle treaty in Eastern Europe.

    4. Fast and furious and how it hurt our relations with Mexico.

    5. His apology tour in the Near East.

    6. His dissing of Israel.

    7. The bad things happening in Iraq and Afghanistan because of pre-announced scheduled withdrawals.

    8. The crappy way he has treated our best ally – Britain.

    9. His support of Argentina in the Faukland Islands issue against Britain.

    (I’m sure I’m forgetting many others.)

    I’m becoming more and more convinced that Romney’s gonna win this election.

  57. texexec Says:

    I did forget an important item. In the next debate, Romney should present a thoroughly fact checked time line of what the president and his team said concerning the Libyan debacle, along with congressional investigation testimony. Clarify that.

  58. OriginalFrank Says:

    Ok, I just skimmed everyone’s comments on the debate so maybe I missed this – but does Obama’s statement that he wants to reinstate the AWB not seem significant to others?

    The LSM has been saying for the last four years that this was only the feverish nightmare of tinfoil types, and he just put the lie to that.

  59. Rob Says:

    Evaluating a debate is not about who’s right. It’s about how each candidate performed.

    Romney did better than I expected last night. He’s clearly worked hard to prepare and I think he’s been coached very well. However, one did have the sense that he was perhaps “overcoached”. Many of his lines seemed canned and he often worked them into the debate at odd times, when they wouldn’t make complete sense in context or the timing seemed odd. To some extent I think this is because Romney’s understanding of the issues is relatively limited. This is in stark contrast to Paul Ryan, whose understanding of the issues is much deeper….perhaps this is why they felt Ryan would be a good VP choice?

    Obama did well. He was himself. He seemed freer and looser this time around, speaking like he always does. I’d give the debate to Obama, though I doubt this is going to make any real difference for his campaign.

    In my opinion, Romney should avoid talking about “getting touch with China”, since we all know that isn’t going to happen. This is something that could come back to haunt him in 4 years, assuming he wins the upcoming election.

  60. southpaw Says:

    I didn’t stay up to watch, but was pleasantly surprised this morning Luntz’s duntzes were more or less in Romney’s corner.

  61. texexec Says:

    “Obama did well. He was himself. He seemed freer and looser this time around, speaking like he always does.”

    I strongly disagree. Obama has lost that jaunty, cool demeanor he had during the 2008 campaign. He seemed stressed out, defensive, and angry to me…and apparently to others as well.

  62. texexec Says:

    “To some extent I think this is because Romney’s understanding of the issues is relatively limited.”

    I strongly disagree with that as well. Romney has the in depth understanding of business and economics that comes from operating a successful business as contrasted with having been a community organizer and college lecturer.

    In this election, it’s the economic issues that really count.

  63. Rob Says:

    “Obama has lost that jaunty, cool demeanor he had during the 2008 campaign. He seemed stressed out, defensive, and angry to me”

    Both candidates seemed angry to me. They clearly dislike one another. As for Obama’s not seeming “jaunty”, I suspect that’s by design. When you’re President, you don’t want to seem “jaunty”. Just a guess.

  64. Rigin Says:

    Romney has the in depth understanding of business and economics that comes from operating a successful business

    Operating a successful business destroying mom and pop companies, firing the workers, and raping the profits.

  65. texexec Says:

    “Operating a successful business destroying mom and pop companies, firing the workers, and raping the profits.”

    …and saving the jobs of people who remained in the companies after they had been cleaned up…troll.

  66. Artfldgr Says:

    Let the crazyness begin…

    A Black Power leader says blacks will lose if a race war occurs in America.

    Lovely discussion… (not)

  67. texexec Says:

    “Both candidates seemed angry to me. They clearly dislike one another. As for Obama’s not seeming “jaunty”, I suspect that’s by design. When you’re President, you don’t want to seem “jaunty”. Just a guess.”

    I think it’s because he feels threatened. Check out his demeanor in front of a friendly crowd…still a jaunty Mr. Cool.

  68. ziontruth Says:

    I gave the debate a miss this time, seeing as the Republicans failed to demand unbiased moderation after the scandalous one in the Vice-Presidential debate. I’m glad to see Crowley wasn’t such a weight on Romney’s feet as Raddatz was on Ryan’s, but it’s depressing that such things are still being left to chance instead of making the preventive move of forcibly unrigging the game a priori.

    Systemic bias against the good side is the issue and is, IMO, in far more pressing need of being dealt with than anything else. As the first debate showed, if you remove this bias then the whole game is completely changed.


    “Try being Israel, but then Israel is not Christian. They can hate their enemies.”

    Not so easy, unfortunately. The anti-Israel world (the worldwide media especially—did I mention systemic bias against the good side already?) holds Israel to Christian standards. As Eric Hoffer said back in 1968, after the Six-Day War: “Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.”

    The worst of it is that my country has a leadership that has largely assimilated this mindset, citing “world opinion” and “the international court in the Hague” as reasons why Israel needs to keep turning the other cheek to Arab/Islamic imperialist aggression. Bibi said “think of the international court of law” when he decided to dismantle a Jewish outpost in Judea and Samaria a few months ago, and Ehud Barak, the Minister of Security, just said the Levy Report (which dares to suggest Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria is legitimate) must be rejected because it would “make Israel a pariah.” These cowards are not fit to lead the Jewish nation in such times. The upcoming elections in Israel on January 22nd will see the Likkud lose a ton of points in favor of parties further to the right—that’s no bold prediction to make.

    That’s the difference between the coming elections in America and Israel: the American Republican candidate may not be perfect but at least there’s a good chance he’ll stand for the values you want him to stand, while in Israel the ones who stand for true right-wing values (a total ban on land concessions, for starters) aren’t candidates. As a slight compensation, parties other than the incumbent Israeli Prime Minister’s one do have a lot of influence, unlike in America’s two-party system, where the President wields a great amount of power even without shredding the Constitution like Obama did (the czars etc).

  69. Rob Says:

    Kolnai, we’ll find out all sorts of interesting things on election day, and in the first few months of next year. I personally have never been as dissatisfied with an election as with this one. I’m going to vote for Romney, yet I have no idea who he is or what he believes. It’s utterly impossible to get a straight answer out of the man (or at any rate, a straight answer that’s consistent with the straight answer someone else received a month ago). So, I’m essentially going to vote for a big question mark and I will hope, HOPE, that Romney ends up being something other then the reincarnation of Obama.

  70. Bob from Virginia Says:


    I think you mean Obama’s attempt to destroy democracy in Honduras rather than Costa Rica. Among the other things you could have mentioned is the back handed way O treated Poland and the Czech Republic over missile defense, the nutty Cairo speech, refusing to recognize the war on terror as a war against the political culture of the middle east, and worst of all appearing weak.

    Rabbi Dove Fischer has a list of around 120 reasons to get rid of Obama. It should a campaign poster. He wrote it before the Benghazi scandal.


  71. davisbr Says:

    My two cents: Obama had a good night. I wish he hadn’t had a night quite as good as he had.

    The bright side: last night didn’t change anyone’s opinion. I don’t think anything will at this point (of which, I’m quite happy about).

    The odd part, to me, in reflection? – From the descriptions I’ve read, those “undecideds” in the audience were all Obama 2008 voters who weren’t happy with his past 4 years. We know Candy leans Left. But those questions, and the delivery, suggest that the tru-ism “it’s the economy, stupid” reigns.

    Cary was not happy. The black dude was not pleased.

    Forget the specific throw-aways (which included all of the “women’s rights” questions: seriously? – give me a break …who the frell cares at this point anymore), and consider the over-all “mood” if you will.

    This was not a group of jubilant supporters of the president. There were people there who were pissed-off …at Obama …and it really came through.

    I confess, given the format, that I didn’t expect that.

    Last: Romney gave a positively Tea Party answer to the question on immigration. He did not pander to the Latino woman. Romney’s response both delighted and shocked me: he didn’t sugar-coat it at all. Kudos.

    Full disclosure. I’m probably softer on the illegal immigration issue than a lot of people: I just know too many illegals who’ve been here for 25 years or more, who are hard-working, tax-paying, home-owning middle-age (and older!) with kids in school/college who I think should be accommodated in the end “jus ‘cuz”.

    …regardless I applaud Romney’s stance.

  72. Curtis Says:

    Rob, your position is the narrative of the Left, a convenient narrative because foreign policy of any candidate requires diligence and study to understand, is open to attack by interpretation of various statements, and easily capable of misrepresentation.

    Here’s the narrative from Leftist Rick Unger:

    “If there is one thing we know for sure, we will continue to have no idea of where Governor Romney really stands on both domestic and foreign issues because where he stands is a constantly moving target.”


    The broad strokes and commitments of Romney are easily known. His trip to England, Israel and Poland; his unequivocal statements about Russia and China; his call for defense through strength and preparation; his remarks about sacrificing free speech and surrendering to Jihad; his belief that American defense is a result of American strength rooted in family and religion . . .

    Here’s some quotes that might help. I wouldn’t get to bogged down in demanding particulars for Mid East policy. Support Israel win it bombs Iran. Show strength not appeasement to Jihad. Develop energy at home.

  73. Curtis Says:


    Romney quotes.

  74. CV Says:

    I hear you kolnai. I too am still steamed about Candy Crowley “correcting” Romney in the middle of that debate!

    I wish Romney hadn’t made that decision to emphasize the Rose Garden comments — he had more than enough material to really hammer Obama on his overall handling of the Libya situation and entire middle east for that matter.

    But it’s really outrageous that Candy took it upon herself to fact-check Romney in that manner. What the hell?

    And don’t get me started on audience questions to Obama like “what will you do about the fact that women only make 72% of what men make?” Give me a break. No way the woman who asked that question was an “undecided voter.” Talk about a softball to Obama, and it wasn’t the only one.

  75. Rob Says:

    “The broad strokes and commitments of Romney are easily known. His trip to England, Israel and Poland; his unequivocal statements about Russia and China; his call for defense through strength and preparation; his remarks about sacrificing free speech and surrendering to Jihad; his belief that American defense is a result of American strength rooted in family and religion . . .”

    In a way, you’ve put your finger on (what I consider to be) the problem.

    First off, I simply don’t believe Romney’s “get tough on China” line. It plays well on the campaign trail, but once in office Romney will cow tow to the Chinese just like they all do. Just wait and see.

    As for Russia, I believe that those who see Russia as our real adversary will be surprised as we cozy up to Russian Bear over the next couple of decades. The US and Russia will need one another. The real problem, honestly, is going to be China (a.k.a. “America’s Bank”).

    As for the “broad strokes” you mention, will any candidate, anywhere, advocate strength through weakness, surrender to Jihad, or dismantling the American family? Romney’s broad strokes here are things that ALL the candidates say, all the time, so of course Romney will too.

    My guess is that Romney will betray us if he is elected. But, thanks to the many other popular Republican sell-outs, he’s the guy we’re stuck with. The “only game in town”, as it were.

  76. SteveH Says:

    “”I’m going to vote for Romney, yet I have no idea who he is or what he believes. It’s utterly impossible to get a straight answer out of the man “”

    The politician who gives straight answers we call farmers and plumbers, with only immediate family members who’d ever vote for them in high office.

    It’s like being frustrated that doctors are destined to lose patients and baseball players to strike out.

  77. texexec Says:

    Bob from Virginia said:

    “I think you mean Obama’s attempt to destroy democracy in Honduras rather than Costa Rica. Among the other things you could have mentioned is the back handed way O treated Poland and the Czech Republic over missile defense, the nutty Cairo speech, refusing to recognize the war on terror as a war against the political culture of the middle east, and worst of all appearing weak.”

    You’re right…it was Honduras not Costa Rica. I need a fact checker although I was right that he messed around with politics in a Central American country in the wrong way. I did mention his dismantling of the missle treaty in Eastern Europe and his apology tour in the Near East.

    I also failed to mention his silence and lack of support for the protesters of the Iranian election and his lack of action in Syria.

  78. SteveH Says:

    Mr Romney, our fact checker has revealed you lied about your favorite color being blue” 🙂

  79. Ira Says:

    Crowley really did save Obama.

    Obama was stunned and momentlarily defenseless when Romney CORRECTLY challenged him on the Rose Garden Statement. As you will see much further below, Obama really hadn’t called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden. You could see on Obama’s face at that point in the debate that he was getting a challenge that he had been fearing might come. Now, Crowley claims that her jumping in was even-handed, but when you read the transcript of her CNN statement, you see that what she said during the debate was not even-handed.

    Here is the relevant portion of the debate transcript. (Below that is the relevant portion of the Rose Garden speech.)

    Transcript from Debate

    [Ira’s Comments Within Brackets]

    OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.

    The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

    [Ira: See, below, the transcript of the Rose Garden speech-Obama did NOT call the Benghazi attack an “act of terror.” I suspect that this was a debate prevarication planned in advance by team Obama.]

    And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

    And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.

    CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to…

    ROMNEY: Yes, I – I…

    CROWLEY: … quickly to this please.

    ROMNEY: I – I think interesting the president just said something which – 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: That’s what I said.

    ROMNEY: 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’re saying?

    OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
    [Ira: You could almost see the blood draining from Obama’s face]

    ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

    OBAMA: Get the transcript.

    [Ira: Like I said, see, below, the transcript of the Rose Garden speech-Obama did NOT call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. I suspect that this was a debate lie planned by team Obama.]

    CROWLEY: It – it – it – he did in fact, sir. So let me – let me call it an act of terror…

    OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
    [Ira: You could hear the relief in Obama’s voice]

    CROWLEY: He – he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take – it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

    ROMNEY: This – the administration – the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

    CROWLEY: It did.

    ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest – am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the – your secretary –

    OBAMA: Candy?
    [Ira: Obama here is asking for more help from his comrade.]

    ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how –

    OBAMA: Candy, I’m –

    ROMNEY: – this was a spontaneous –

    CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me –

    OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation –

    CROWLEY: I know you –

    OBAMA: – about foreign policy.

    CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to – I want to move you on and also –

    OBAMA: OK. I’m happy to do that, too.

    CROWLEY: – the transcripts and –

    OBAMA: I just want to make sure that –

    CROWLEY: – figure out what we –

    OBAMA: – all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.

    CROWLEY: Because what I – what I want to do, Mr. President, stand there a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzalez, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd.

    Crowley’s CNN Statement

    [Ira’s Comments Within Brackets]

    Crowley on CNN after the debate: Well, you know, I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand or, whatever the whole quote was.

    And I think actually, you know because, right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was a, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t.

    So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. And I, you know, they’re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of is is, but, I, uh, you know, in the end, I think John [King]’s probably right. I think this has a lot more to with jobs and the debt crisis and all of that kind of stuff.

    I just think that probably it was one of those moments and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting. It’s just that was the natural thing coming out of me going, ‘Actually he did, you know, call it an act of terror.’ Uh, when, you know, half the crowd clapped for that and the other half clapped for ‘But they kept telling us this was a tape, this was caused by a tape’ so, you know, in the main, the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that, um, but I just think he picked the wrong kind of way to go about talking about it if that makes sense.

    [Ira: Notice that Crowley quibbles that Romney used “the wrong word,” BUT the word “totally” as in the phrase “totally correct” that Crowley says she said do NOT appear in the debate transcript.]

    [Note this from Obama’s man Robert Gibbs: “I thought at many times during the evening, I thought, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney appeared to be debating Candy Crowley and not really debating Barack Obama.” See, http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/robert-gibbs-many-times-during-evening-mitt-romney-appeared-to-be-debating-candy-crowley-not-barack-obama-video/%5D

    Crowley’s reading, or rereading, comprehension, or her honesty, is highly suspect. I heard the Rose Garden speech when President Obama made it, and my recollection is that he did NOT call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. The context of Obama’s description of the attack is this, from the Rose Garden speech:

    “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. [An obvious allusion to the Mohammed video excuse.] But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”

    As you can see below, Obama’s comment in his Rose Garden speech about “acts of terror” was related to the four prong attack of 9/11/2001, and that is why he refused to himself defend his claim that he had, in his Rose Garden speech, called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror”:

    “Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

    “As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

    “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. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    “But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.”

    Of course, there is the famous statement about a lie getting half way around the world before the truth having a chance to get out of bed and get even one leg into a pair of pants.

    If the Romney folks use this correctly, Obama’s credibility will be shown for what it actually is.

  80. Barry Says:

    Yes, but, “Binders of Women!!!” Oh, they’re so clever. The Daily Showing of America.

    First Big Bird now Binders. Give me my free birth control!

  81. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Texexec, it is beyond the powers of mere mortals to keep track of Obama’s mental and moral malfeasance.
    That kind of bookkeeping would give the gods headaches. I guess the best any of us will be able to do is highlight the best known crimes against America and its remaining friends.

  82. uncleFred Says:

    When I was in college I was a debater, and used to judge high school debates. Debates are a form of highly stylized advocacy, they are not really an argument. Debates are between teams and the team members do not know which side of the question they will have to support in advance. So debating comes down to argued points and citations which support each point. To put it simply an unanswered point stands. A challenged point which has no citation fails. At the end the team with the most points wins.

    That is not how a political debate like last night’s works. When someone says Obama “won on points” they overlook that some issues matter much more than others.

    Romney won last night because he hit Obama very hard on issues that carry the most weight with voters, especially so called “swing” voters. The economy, jobs, taxes, and “not having to settle” were body blows.

    Yes Obama got some unanswered shots in, but by comparison they were light jabs, they may have stung but did little damage.

    And then there was Libya and Fast and Furious.

    Obama lied about Libya and no amount of “parsing” can change that. All day today there are timelines of what was said and when. The left is willing to accept the spin, the undecided voter is not. Even if they don’t care about Libya, they do care about being lied to.

    Lastly Fast and Furious. Obama announces that he’s going after guns. Additional gun control is opposed by something like 2/3rds of voters which means there are a lot of independents out there who won’t feel comfortable with this position. Net net this cost Obama some votes.

    Far more importantly it gave Romney the chance to bring up fast and furious. Yes he got cut off, but he also got it on the table, and this is not just about gun running to Mexican gangs, it’s central to our foreign policy in this hemisphere. Which means along with Libya it will be on the table for the last debate. The vast majority of “low information” and undecided voters haven’t heard about F&F and if they have they’ve heard that it “started under Bush”. Obama himself allowed Romney to break the stone wall that the MSM has constructed around this story. It shares a deep common link with Libya, Obama’s policies got Americans killed and then the administration lied about it.

    Didn’t look like it, but Obama stuck his foot in a gopher hole and broke his leg on that one.

  83. neo-neocon Says:

    Ira: around the time you were posting your comment, I was writing this post on the same subject. Take a look.

  84. Curtis Says:

    Rob, your argument was that you didn’t know what Romney’s policies were, not that he wouldn’t stick to them once in office, so Romney has been pretty clear on Russia and China.

    On who doesn’t agree with the broad strokes: Again, the broad strokes are well-known but in Obama’s case his record speaks louder than his words, which words do not speak all that loud on behalf of America.

    It’s just not credible to say a person can’t get a good understanding of Romney’s policies.

  85. Rob Says:

    “Rob, your argument was that you didn’t know what Romney’s policies were, not that he wouldn’t stick to them once in office, so Romney has been pretty clear on Russia and China.”

    I don’t know what Romney’s policies are. I know what policies he voices support for at different points in time, but that’s not the same thing. And the question whether his actions will be consistent with any of the policies he says he supports is yet a different matter.

  86. Ira Says:

    neo-neocon Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    Ira: around the time you were posting your comment, I was writing this post on the same subject. Take a look.

    Excellent post, neo-neocon. Both my comment and your slightly newer post show that it takes so much more time to disprove a lie than it takes to concoct one.

  87. neo-neocon Says:

    Ira: plus (as Churchill well knew), a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

  88. Curtis Says:

    Allright Rob, at least we’ve got the issues separated. My guess is that if I asked you to provide examples (evidence) of your position, with reference only to statements or actions of Romney (not the secondary sources of leftist pundits) you would find less confusion than you think.

  89. RandomThoughts Says:

    Given that the final debate will be on foreign policy, Obama’s lie about Libya is going to be revisited. I expect his side of the debate will be one long string of astoundingly obvious prevarications.

  90. M J R Says:

    Rob and others,

    Romney will revert to form as a liberal Republican. But he’s the sort of liberal (there do exist some)who really does believe in the free market economy, unlike so many liberal types who seem to merely mouthe the thought because that’s what they have to do to remain politically viable.

    Other than, now that it’s down to two candidates, with Romney there’s a chance of righting the wayward ship (and it’ll be a long slog, extending well after any Romney administration); with The One there is none whatsoever, and time is about to run out.

  91. parker Says:

    Rigin Says, “Operating a successful business destroying mom and pop companies, firing the workers, and raping the profits.”

    You’ve got a lot of nerve…


    You would not recognize rape, pillage, and burn if you were standing at the broken gates as the Visigoths storm Rome. What a loser.

  92. parker Says:

    “… with Romney there’s a chance…”

    Yep, its a chance, slim perhaps, but that is what we are offered. I will grasp the thin thread and meanwhile continue to prepare accordingly.

  93. M J R Says:

    You ‘n’ me both.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge