Actually they both failed fairly badly in that exchange. Romney was right that drilling is way down. That raw fact was on his side. He was flabbergasted that Obama would deny the plain truth of that. But he was being misleading because the reason drilling is down so much is because of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and it’s aftermath. Obama failed to bring this up, which would have been a good point for him to score. I’d say this one went 0-0.
She was hostile to the one who kept trying to break the rules? you don’t say, next you are gonna tell me cops are meaner to criminals than regular civilians. If Romney wants a moderator that will treat them equally maybe he shouldn’t try so hard to act like a total prick and follow the rules.
I also saw NBC fact check this, and surprisingly Romney lied. Over Obama’s term, oil production on federal lands is up about 10%. Relative to LAST YEAR, it has fallen, but that’s not the point Romney was lying- er stressing.
In a way, what you’re doing here is akin to Romney’s vacillations about Obama. You could make the case that Crowley was incompetent, or you could make the case that she was malevolent. It’s hard to make both simultaneously, but because your base is split down the middle you try to make both cases together, which strains your credibility.
Pick a lie and stick to it, for Christ’s sake.
Geesus, What the fuck is the difference between “acts of terror” and “terrorism”? He said it in the Rose Garden. DEAL with it. It happened the day after the attack.
Are the Repubs so stupid as to think that if it was an act of terrorism that Obama had to go in with guns blazing before finding out the full situation? Doesn’t it make sense to understand the full extent of the security breech and why it didn’t happen? Would the request for heightened security for the Embassy in Tripoli and not a compound in Benghazi have anything to do with it? Would the confluence of violent acts and protests have anything to do with what happened here?
And then ask yourself How fucking long did it take W to react after 911? I’ll wait.
Let’s not foget that Romney stood out there and accused the President of being uncaring, imbecile running off to a Vegas fundraiser. It’s okay to insult the President when he just lost great people that he felt a responsibility to?
No we didn’t. Polling shows that everyone basically felt “their guy” won. It’s possible that one or the other might have scored a point or two more with the actual swing voters. But, who knows? Really, you are talking about people too dumb to have made their minds up about who they are voting for yet.
You are right. Crowley and the overall debate bias towards Obama will probably go unnoticed by the independent voters, despite the huge favor that it gave to him. That’s unfair, and it sucks. But it is true.
Twenty years ago there was nothing we could do about it. Now at least there are a few right wing and center news sources who will at least attempt to balance it out.
But you are right. Overall the liberal media bias is a huge help to Obama.
The President mentioned Iowa in reference to wind power. He mentioned manufacturing. He needs to mention the economy of Oregon, Washington - Boeing, Microsoft.
Virginia should turn out to be as much of a battleground state as Ohio. And, counter-inuititvely, New England states should come into play. Remember, Romney was Governor of a New England state.
Irrelevant, since the gotcha point Romney was trying to make was about the number of permits, not the number of drilling operations. This attempt at obfuscation is particularly lame given that Obama’s rebuttal was focused precisely on the distinction between the two (the use-it-or-lose-it policy on permits, which put some of them into the “lose it” column).
Of course, those aren’t the only possibilities. There is at least one more:
- The administration knew that the attack was from terrorists but had no reason to announce that fact.
“Your Honor, my client never touched this car. Also, this car was already damaged when my client took possession. Finally, this car was in perfect condition when my client returned it.”
Why not? That’s what a real man like – well, Republicans don’t like to speak his name any more, but it’s purely out of reverence, yeah, that’s the ticket, reverence – would do, dangit!
I don’t know, I think Obama wanted to make the point that overall production is up, which he did, and what does it matter what lands the oil comes from? He clearly explained that some companies that had been granted leases, who weren’t doing any drilling, had them revoked.
What polling?. The numbers at the link seem to indicate a much wider advantage for Obama in the debate polls than he enjoys in the election polls.
I don’t know why it can’t be both. She wants Obama to win and leans towards him on the issues. However, she also wants to appear to be fair and unbiased. But she failed in that, in epic fashion. It will go down in history as one of the worst moderated debates ever. That is her incompetence.
That’s regarding her slip to enter the debate on Obama’s side.
As to the questions asked: I don’t know if she tried to pick fair questions and failed or if she was knowingly stacking the deck for Obama, but either way the result was clear.
Nope. The polling shows a clear, if not huge, victory for Obama. Not as lopsided as debate #1, but the polling does indeed show that viewers thought Obama won.
The losers almost always complain about the moderator. The fact is, all Crowley did was try to keep the candidates on topic and moving along, and occasionally (maybe once) actually interject with a fact. Romney was wrong about “acts of terror”- Obama did say that the day after. Yes there was confusion for several days about the exact nature of the attack, and I suppose that was Romney’s main point (as weak a point as it is, IMO), but he doubled-down on something that was false. Obama did indeed call it an “act of terror”.
What rule did he break?
If he didn’t insist on equal time Obama would have continued to speak for minutes longer on every question. Crowley gave Obama the last word, or attempted to on nearly every question.
When facing a hostile debate moderator and questions and format, you have to fight for equality. I don’t know what other choice Romney had.
In fact, that’s clearly the best policy. It denies terrorists the attention and fear they seek, while leaving the decks clear for rationally planned countermeasures.
But it’s clearly not what the administration was doing. He went around talking loudly about the video for over a week.
Saying you won’t comment on an ongoing investigation is one thing. That wasn’t what happened. The administration at all levels was blaming the incident on a protest over a video. This just wasn’t true.
Right now, Romney can only wish the questions had been stacked in favor of Obama. If that had been the case, the Libya question would have been rejected out of hand (being the big GOP talking point of the past week), and Romney wouldn’t have stepped on his dick in front of a few dozen million people.
No he didn’t. He used the term “act of terror” in exactly two instances in all of his speeches for the twelve days after the attacks. At no time did he use it referring to the attacks. Instead he called the attackers “killers” or words other than terrorists.
No reason other than telling us the truth, that is. If they didn’t know or didn’t want to say they should have said that. But claiming it was the result of the nutty video was stupid, since they should have known that would be debunked.
I don’t see this as some huge issue, but no need to give Obama a pass just because he’s our guy.