USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

[Evo]

How many people have voted?

I don't know the number, but it was a live poll of people watching the debate that were provided clickers.

 

[rootX]

That's the basic conservative economic position: more economic freedom -> higher growth -> more tax revenue -> lower deficits.

Yes something I also support to some extent but I haven't heard that argument from Romney yet. He talked about bringing more economic freedom but completely ignored the question how he will lower deficits. He has been challenged on this for so many times during last and this debate but I don't recall he explained his conservative economic position. I believe he never brought the connection between "more economic freedom" and "lower deficits".

 

[Mentalist]

We all should know how this plan of Romney's is going to work. The middle class will have to pay for it, but that statement is obviously unsupported so I am just using my intuition here.
Romney is not going to answer that question because he will look incompetent if he changes it with 4/3 weeks away from the election, and if he did tell us, he will put himself in the picture of the business man screwing the little guy once again, and in this climate that would mean utter disaster for him to win the presidency. So, just deflect the question and start talking about the other guy. (Of course, that is my intuition speaking here).

 

[Evo]

Greg split off the debate discussion here https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4118671#post4118671

 

[CAC1001]

I agree that Romney completely flubbed the first question. You'd think he'd have had an intelligent way to answer it. He seemed weak at first, but then seemed to grow stronger as the debate went on. Obama was much stronger this time then last time.

I did not like how either candidate answered the gun question. "Gang bangers", "we need two parents in the home," and, "education"? Are you serious?

Gangs are a serious cause of violence.

Me: Assault weapons, shotguns, non-hunting rifles, all banned, banned, banned.

There is no such thing as an assault weapon (there are assault rifles), shotguns are used for hunting, and pretty much any rifle can be used for hunting (rifles that can't be used for hunting are fine for home defense/protection purposes as not everyone hunts).

Hunting rifles are not similar to AK-47 or AR15's. Hunting rifles aren't sniper rifles either and one can set plans to put those weapons on a banned list.

AR-15s make excellent hunting rifles and there are numerous hunting-specific AR-15 models available that have a longer barrel, green camouflage, and fire a 7.62 mm round.

And two of the military's sniper rifles, the U.S. Army's M24 sniper rifle and the U.S. Marine Corps M40 sniper rifle are both militarized versions of what is a very popular hunting rifle, the Remington 700.

Dealing with gangs starts with dealing with their weapons, i.e. their assault rifles and shotguns.

Most gangs kill with handguns, not assault rifles and shotguns. And assault rifles are already illegal unless registered pre-1986.

 

[collinsmark]

Based purely on debate performance, I don't think Romney every recovered from the Libya discussion. A little before that, I might have given a slight lead to Romney. (I'm not speaking about the actual issues, but rather just the debate performance -- imagine that instead of them discussing real-world jobs, taxes, and foreign policy, they were discussing which lollipops taste best and how to produce tastier lollipops).

Romney was doing a crafty job at prodding Obama, asking pointed, direct, leading, questions at him, in several different occasions. I speculate he was attempting to fluster Obama by getting him to lose composure. A couple of times I almost thought Obama might just stand up and slap him upside the head, but he succeeded in keeping is cool.

However, Romney's wording of his answers was smooth, whereas sometimes Obama's answers were comparatively disjointed (that's why I would have given Romney a slight lead up until then). That is until Romney decided to suddenly, and unexpectedly change the topic from criminal immigrant deportation to Chinese investments. Really? Chinese investments out of the blue from deporting criminals? Where the heck did that come from?

Right after that, the floor fell out from under Romney's feet.

Referring to Secretary of State taking full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi:

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.

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.

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.

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?

CROWLEY: He -- [Obama] 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.
​

[Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/2012-presidential-debate-full-transcript-oct-16/story?id=17493848#.UH4lSoa0LTp]

After that point, Romney reminded me of Porky Pig in a Looney Tunes cartoon, "Ba-daba-da-ba-bada." Romney effectively, right there, made it look all the more like he was/is trying to politicize the deaths of the four Americans.

Obama won this debate.

 

[russ_watters]

Romney certainly flubbed the Libya thing. There were major points to be scored there, but he had to be ready for Obama's citing of his first speech. Romney could have dismissed the first speech and focused on later comments (specifically, by UN ambassador Rice) or said terror=/terrorism and prodded Obama to use the word right then and there. At the same time, the moderator didn't help by tripping over her tongue about what Romney got right. Big opportunity missed.

 

[mathwonk]

romney's fundamental problem is that most people do not agree with nor benefit from his philosophy, which favors the very wealthy, and this was made clear tonight. he is going down the tubes. he has an especially hard time defending why he himself pays only 14% income tax last year (what did you pay?) and he would have paid only 10% had he not been running for president, and still may do so if he loses. would you enjoy subsidizing his gifts to the mormon church?

 

[CAC1001]

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.

Except that is precisely what he did. He sent out his own Ambassador onto five different Sunday talk shows to mislead that it was a random attack as opposed to an organized terrorism attack.

 

[CAC1001]

romney's fundamental problem is that most people do not agree with nor benefit from his philosophy, which favors the very wealthy, and this was made clear tonight. he is going down the tubes. he has an especially hard time defending why he himself pays only 14% income tax last year (what did you pay?) and he would have paid only 10% had he not been running for president, and still may do so if he loses. would you enjoy subsidizing his gifts to the mormon church?

Romney's philosophy doesn't benefit the very wealthy. His argument for lowering taxes further and that he can do so in a revenue-neutral manner by closing up loopholes is rather sketchy, but his basic arguments for limited government, low taxes, light regulation, free economy, etc...benefit everyone. He pays most of his taxes at the capital gains rate, which is lower because it is on investment income that itself is oftentimes already taxed at the corporate level (although if said business ends up paying zero tax as GE did then it would be a lower tax).

 

[Evo]

Except that is precisely what he did. He sent out his own Ambassador onto five different Sunday talk shows to mislead that it was a random attack as opposed to an organized terrorism attack.

No, that's misinformation being spread by biased media.

Here is what the WH sent to media on 9-12, the day after the Libya attack.

U.S. sources said Wednesday the four-hour assault in Benghazi had been planned, with the attackers using the protest as a diversion.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama also said "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved

He said "it wasn't a mob action" he said "extremist militias" were suspected. That's saying it wasn't "protestors".

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-10-10/world/world_libya-attack-statements_1_libya-attack-actionable-intelligence-benghazi/3

 

[MacLaddy]

This is probably not very important, but I found it interesting that towards the end of the debate Romney called himself a "Pastor," and that he had a "Congregation."

I believe the correct terms are a "Bishop," and a "Ward."

Like I said- probably unimportant. I am curious why he would change these titles though. Seems a bit like pandering. I wonder if anything will come from it.

 

[russ_watters]

No, that's misinformation being spread by biased media.

Nonsense, Evo. Rice did make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and talk about it being a "spontaneous" response to the protest. It actually happened. It is fact.

Here is what the WH sent to media on 9-12...

1. Prove that "US sources" are from the White House. The fact that the statement contradicts direct administration statements implies to me that those sources were not from the White House or authorized by the White House. I can't prove that and don't assert it as fact, but you are claiming your speculation as fact.
2. How does the use of leaks (if in fact this was purposely leaked by the White House, as you are implying) saying the right thing make it OK to have an actual representative of the Obama administration openly mislead us?

He said "it wasn't a mob action" he said "extremist militias" were suspected. That's saying it wasn't "protestors".

That was Sept 25, two weeks after the attack. In any case, one of the other things he was criticized for was in answering a direct question about "terrorism", he didn't use the word "terrorism".

 

[Angry Citizen]

Libya is a valid point against Obama. Romney completely blew it. Romney's best moment came near the beginning when he started badgering the President asking him for numbers and specifics. That was his high point of the debate. Obama proceeded to gut him on everything else. Any time I'd think Romney was making a solid point, Obama came and countered it, driving a stake through Romney's argument. Libya particularly was devastating, and I think Obama and the moderator essentially annihilated any argument Romney could ever make about the subject, particularly with Obama's death stare at Romney.

This debate was Obama's, plain and simple. Not quite the margin of defeat that Romney inflicted on Obama in the first debate, but certainly one of the strongest beatdowns of a candidate in modern debate history.

 

[Evo]

Nonsense, Evo. Rice did make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and talk about it being a "spontaneous" response to the protest. It actually happened. It is fact.

I'm saying it's nonsense that Obama sent Rice to give information that contradicted what he said. Unless you have a valid source saying Obama sent her out to contradict him.

 

[Evo]

First polls coming in show Obama winner of debate.

Obama Won Presidential Debate, 46 Percent Say in CNN Poll

President Barack Obama won last night’s presidential debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, according to a CNN/ORC International poll of 457 registered voters who watched the nationally televised event.

Forty-six percent of those surveyed said Obama fared better in the debate, compared with 39 percent for Romney, according to results aired on CNN after the event. The poll found 73 percent said Obama’s performance exceeded expectations, compared with 37 percent who said Romney did better than expected.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-17/obama-won-presidential-debate-46-percent-say-in-cnn-poll.html

Poll: Obama edges Romney in second presidential debate
October 16, 2012 8:09 PM

In a CBS News Instant Poll of uncommitted voters, 37 percent say President Obama won the second presidential debate, 30 percent say Romney won, and 33 percent called it a tie.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133279n

 

[CAC1001]

I'm saying it's nonsense that Obama sent Rice to give information that contradicted what he said. Unless you have a valid source saying Obama sent her out to contradict him.

But here is what Obama said:

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."

Ambassador Rice went the rounds on five shows saying that it was not a planned attack. So either she didn't know what she was talking about or was misleading the public.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm saying it's nonsense that Obama sent Rice to give information that contradicted what he said. Unless you have a valid source saying Obama sent her out to contradict him.

Evo, you didn't quote Obama. At best, that is stating speculation as fact.

The second sententence is flipping: YOU are the one claiming a contradiction. You are the one saying he leaked statements that contradict what his representative made media rounds to say. I am saying there is no evidence of such a intra-admin contradiction and you need to support your claim. My perception is that administration sources are typically labeled as such. That this one wasn't implies to me that it wasn't.

Are you saying you think Rice did that on her own? If so, she really screwed Obama. Don't you think he would want to set the record straight like when he said the Egyptian embassy statements were not approved?

 

[Jack21222]

By the way, did you guys notice when Mitt Romney said he'd save middle class Americans money by removing the tax on the interest from your savings?

I don't know about you guys, but I made 3 dollars in interest last year. (Note, he's not talking about retirement accounts, those are already not taxed. He's talking about savings). Anyway, the tax on my 3 dollars of interest amounts to about 50 cents.

The interest rates on savings accounts is in the 0.25% range, and it's hard to find a CD that pays more than 2%. If you have so much in savings that you pay a noticeable amount of tax on the interest, you have NOT been "crushed" by the economy and Obama, as Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night.

For hard numbers, let me give you an example. I'd say $100 in tax savings would be a noticeable amount. It's a fairly small amount as far as tax credits or deductions go, but it's noticeable. If you paid $100 in tax on your savings interest, that means you earned $667 in income from savings.

If you had all of your savings in a CD, the highest-yielding CD I can find through a google search (https://www.google.com/advisor/uscd?bsp=1&s=1&kw=cd%20rates&group=GenericRadio&gclid=CM695sa2iLMCFQHNOgodh0cAKg&term=0:5001&q=cd+rates ) is 1.95%.

This means, to earn your $667 with that CD, you would have needed to invest over $34,000 in that CD. If, instead, it was a savings account with 0.25% interest, you'd need to have a quarter-million invested.

Now, I know a lot of middle-class people, and not one of them has 34,000 invested. They have mortgages to pay off, car loans, student loans, etc. Every one of these sources of debt carry higher interest rates than you can make from a CD. Therefore, they'd be better of taking any extra money and using it to pay down debts, which is exactly what they do.

It's common advice that you should keep 3 to 6 months living expenses as an emergency fund in savings. That comes out to be around $10,000 dollars. A person with 10k in savings is not going to be paying a noticeable amount of tax on their savings.

Now, Mitt Romney and his friends all make plenty of money on their savings. So, I guess he assumes that everybody is in the same position. It's just like when he said that if you can't afford college "get your parents to pay for it."

Completely out of touch with what it means to be middle class.

 

[Evo]

Evo, you didn't quote Obama.

The first was a WH press release, the second was from Obama.

The second sententence is flipping: YOU are the one claiming a contradiction. You are the one saying he leaked statements that contradict what his representative made media rounds to say.

No, I'm saying if someone on his staff made comments that appeared to contradict what the Presdient said, then post them. Stop twisiting my words.

I am saying there is no evidence of such a intra-admin contradiction and you need to support your claim. My perception is that administration sources are typically labeled as such. That this one wasn't implies to me that it wasn't.

No, You are the one claiming Rice went around giving interviews that you claim contradict what the President said, so you need to provide those interviews. Please post all of the interviews, I haven't seen them so do not know what she was asked or said. There were riots popping up around embassies for a couple of weeks after Cairo & Libya. The only interview I saw, she was asked to comment on the movie and it's effects, creating protestors. Rice did not bring it up as a cause for the Libya attack.

 

[russ_watters]

The first was a WH press release...

You posted this quote:

U.S. sources said...

Your claim about it is doubly wrong:

1. That's not a press release. That's a paraphrase of an unnamed source. A press release is a memo written on official letterhead and send to the media, either digitally or on paper. From the White House, they look like this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases

If I'm misunderstanding you and there's one in there on the subject, please show it to me.

2. Typically, an unnamed source from the White House is labeled as a White House (or administration) source:
https://www.google.com/search?q="wh...&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.com/search?q="ad...f1cba9759f1241&bpcl=35440803&biw=1306&bih=655
The fact that the CNN article just says "government source" implies that it was not a White House source.

No, I'm saying if someone on his staff made comments that appeared to contradict what the Presdient said, then post them. Stop twisiting my words.

I'm not twisting your words, Evo, it honestly didn't occur to me that after multiple posts about this in two threads, plus discussion of it in the debate, you still wouldn't know what we're talking about. The first time I sourced this was three days ago, here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=643237&page=5&highlight=Rice

You responded to just about everything else in the post except the part that directly contradicted you. I'll post it again for you:

What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet," Rice said on "Fox News Sunday." "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States. ... What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...-refute-administration-claims-on-libya-attack

In the debate transcript that collinsmark linked, as part of the discussion collinsmark posted, Romney is trying to get out Rice's message but Obama and Crowley are shouting him down. Given that Obama got more talking time than Romney did in the debate, Crowley did Obama a big favor in both making Obama's argument for him and keeping Romney from making his, that helped turn the debate in his direction.

Please acknowledge that you have read the above quote from Rice, Evo. The rest of your post is moot anyway until after you've read it and had a chance to correct the rest of the post.

 

[edward]

Apparently Romney didn't remember how he got the binder full of women. In actuality MASSGAP gave him the names.

MassGAP -
Moving Women Forward
The Massachusetts Government Appointments Project (MassGAP) was founded in 2002 as a bi-partisan coalition of women’s groups whose purpose is to increase the number of women appointed by the new governor to senior-level cabinet positions, agency heads and selected authorities and commissions in the Commonwealth. The Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (MWPC) is the Lead Sponsor of this coalition.

http://www.massgap.org/

The nonpartisan Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus says in a statement that it instigated the process of bringing more women into state government before Romney took office — and that Romney fell off in appointing women to senior positions later in his term.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/17/massgap-responds-to-mitt-romney-on-women-appointees/

 

[Pythagorean]

Meanwhile, outside the doors of the debate building, a publicity stunt by the green party:

http://www.care2.com/causes/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-arrested-at-presidential-debate.html

 

[Evo]

You posted this quote: Your claim about it is doubly wrong:

1. That's not a press release. That's a paraphrase of an unnamed source. A press release is a memo written on official letterhead and send to the media, either digitally or on paper. From the White House, they look like this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases

If I'm misunderstanding you and there's one in there on the subject, please show it to me.

LOL. Please explain why it matters. :p Here is the update I mentioned that linked me to the news article I posted. Please explain how what I call it changes the content.

Original article update with link.

UPDATE: U.S. officials have told The New York Times and CNN that the deadly consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, which killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, may have been planned in advance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ens-ambassador-to-libya-killed_n_1876544.html

Which lead me to the article I posted.

But U.S. sources said Wednesday the four-hour assault in Benghazi had been planned, with the attackers using the protest as a diversion.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-10-10/world/world_libya-attack-statements_1_libya-attack-actionable-intelligence-benghazi/3

You responded to just about everything else in the post except the part that directly contradicted you. I'll post it again for you: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...-refute-administration-claims-on-libya-attack

That article doesn't have a transcript or video, so it's not worth addressing since we have no idea in which context anything was said and what the reporter asked that prompted replies. I want to see or read the actual interview. What Susan Rice says doesn't trump what the President said, and we DO have the transcript of what he said on the 12th.

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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...marks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

This was in response to this.

In addition, there is the issue of the bad information the administration fed us for weeks after the incident regarding the nature of the incident and the continuing weaseling on that point. Characterizing the attack as growing out of a protest when no protest even existed was a pretty big - and pretty specific - miss, and the protracted struggle with pulling the truth out of the administration when media (first, Fox) had been reporting it for weeks looks like lying to us for political purposes (to suppress the idea that al Qaeda is still a significant threat despite Obama's efforts). And that is on Obama himself.

If you had read mainstream news, you would have known on the 12th that the President said it was an act of terror.

A spokesperson for Ambassador Rice told CBS News that she was given those speaking points by the intelligence community, not by the State Department.

So I don't know who you are blaming here. Rice? Ok, I'll agree she may not have had accurate information, but she wasn't sent out by the WH with it.

 

[edward]

There was more going on in Benghazi than most people seem to be aware of.

Issa's investigation blew the cover of the CIA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

There were fewer security personnel because Libyan leaders did not allow our private security firm in the country. Yes we do use private companies in high risk areas.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/49400090/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

I just read that both Shell and BP went back into Libya in April. They must have thought it was safe.

I have never posted a link to a French news source before, but they knew a lot more than we did early on. They still have sources on the ground, yet a lot of it was a mystery to them.

http://www.france24.com/en/20120917...azi&ns_fee=0&gclid=CM6G-fjniLMCFUfNOgodoTgAmw

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ney-over-jobs-energy-024727253--election.html

http://news.yahoo.com/sidelines-debate-moderator-crowley-becomes-part-story-061946975.html
Republicans complain that CNN’s Candy Crowley sided with Obama during a key debate moment

"I don't complain about the refs," said campaign senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom. "I think Candy was dandy."

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-stumbles-latest-presidential-debate-015330844--election.html


I thought Romney sounded better prepared. Obama didn't seem ready to challenge Romney, particularly on energy or jobs. I listened from a distance because I was working on more important things. My daughter was ranting about both candidates not answering the questions directly, but spinning off in other irrelevant directions.

 

[russ_watters]

That article doesn't have a transcript or video, so it's not worth addressing since we have no idea in which context anything was said and what the reporter asked that prompted replies. I want to see or read the actual interview.

Completely unreasonable request, but still, here's two, with the first one being the one quoted previously:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/09/16/amb-susan-rice-rep-mike-rogers-discuss-violence-against-americans-middle-east#p//v/1843960658001
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week...ons-susan-rice/story?id=17240933#.UH98v8XLTwY

The context of the ABC interview actually makes it worse. The interviewer starts off the interview by trying to lead her in the right direction by mentioning al Qaeda and instead she turns and goes in the wrong direction:

TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We're hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They're saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaida ties. What's the latest information?

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

 

[Evo]

Russ, read this and hopefully this will help to clarify what I've been saying, my apologies if it hasn't been clear.

Obama stated from the beginning it was an act of terror..I'm right there.

Some of his staff went off with information they did not get from the WH and confused the issue - you're right.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror/index.html

We're both right.

 

[Evo]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ney-over-jobs-energy-024727253--election.html

http://news.yahoo.com/sidelines-debate-moderator-crowley-becomes-part-story-061946975.html
Republicans complain that CNN’s Candy Crowley sided with Obama during a key debate moment

"I don't complain about the refs," said campaign senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom. "I think Candy was dandy."

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-stumbles-latest-presidential-debate-015330844--election.html


I thought Romney sounded better prepared. Obama didn't seem ready to challenge Romney, particularly on energy or jobs. I listened from a distance because I was working on more important things.

But as you've said in chat, Romney will destroy this country if elected, to paraphrase.

 

[russ_watters]

No, Evo, you're only right insofar as you were saying something true that wasn't in question (what Obama said on 9/12) as a way to contradict something that was also true. But you also made about half a dozen different wrong claims including the bizarre claim that the media made up the interviews that I posted above.