It was the first hit I got in Google news.
I’d like it if we had someone who brought coherent points from the right side of the spectrum, rather than Glen Beck-Foxnews-Drudge Report talking points that are illogical at best, and incoherent or false at worst.
So it’s Google’s fault you gave a lousy cite?
Obama went over his time far more often than Romney. He just wasn’t penalized for it. If Romney was the one pushing the rules so much why did Obama have a longer speaking time not just at the end but throughout the entire debate? He was already a couple minutes ahead just after the first few questions. It was Obama that needed interrupting, not Romney.
Sorry, being the “First hit in google news” does not lend your comment additional accuracy or veracity in my eyes.
That was in response to the claim that I “cherry picked” the cite. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s in line with all the other polling I’ve seen today.
We are all humbled by your in depth research.
Here’s what’s going to happen- the initial reaction was a clear Obama win. That is going to be multiplied in the next several days as more people debate the debate. The polls are going to shift a bit Obama’s way. Then next week they will debate foreign policy. While I’m sure Mitt will gladly steamroll a kindly old fellow like Bob Schieffer, he has no ammunition to fire. What’s he going to talk about? Libya. Yeah, that worked so well last night. His European Clown Circus from August? I got it- Obama’s Apology Tour. Except that Bob may ask for a specific instance where Obama apologized. Then Mitt will shit his pants.
“Terrorist attack”? Sure - the administration had not used those words at that time. They were claiming the attack sprang out of a protest over the video.
“Act of terror”? Obama himself used that term the very next day.
That was Romney’s mistake, claiming the president had not used a specific phrase that he did in fact use. Had he merely stuck with the talking point - that the Administration was blaming the videos primarily and not calling it a premeditated attack - he would have been perfectly fine. But he fucked up.
I don’t even understand what point the Romney is trying to make. Can someone please explain to me why this is what they are hanging their hat? Seriously, when it comes to Benghazi there are reasonable questions about how security was handled, for example. But, instead they decide to launch an attack, wrongly, on the word terror and terrorism?
Nor was it meant to.
Do you really not know that I was responding to someone accusing me of cherry picking my poll? Are you just reading my posts and looking for anything to pick at without even pretending to care about context?
Perhaps because Obama was speaking in longer paragraphs and was summing up a point, rather than changing topics entirely and trying to deflect. A moderator tends to interrupt when someone is wandering aimlessly off topic.
You’ll note that when Obama was going off topic, talking about education and teachers during (I think) a gun control question, Crowly shut him down.
The trouble is that Rove and his little flying monkeys are going to have their hands full trying to squelch all of their guy’s outbursts of half-cocked stupidity:
-
The Libya gaffe (compounded by Obama’s smooth “please proceed” closing of the trap)
-
The Women In Bindage: Fifty Shades Of Mitt moment where he revealed that his plan to reach out to wimmenfolk is to show his sensitivity to their need to rush home to take care of the kids and get supper on the table
-
The “green cards stapled to your college diploma for some, self-deportation for others” solution to the problem of “illegals”
-
“I came through small business.” Uh… yeah.
Eh, teh stoopid makes my brain hurt, so I’ll quit here.
My WAG is that they are trying very hard to regain their one-untouchable lead on issues related to terrorism. They are doing so by trying to undermine the administrations victories against Al Qaeda and paint him as a weak leader who can’t even call terrorism by it’s name when he sees it. It also provides some grounding to the insinuation (ongoing since his election) that Obama will take the side of Muslims, even terrorists, in foreign relations.
It’s a classic “attack their strength” ploy, but I actually think it’s an unhealthy distraction for Romney right now. He is on much sounder ground hammering the economic situation, gas prices, jobs, etc.
Yeah…Romney fucked up his wording. I personally don’t see the difference between a terrorist attack and an act of terror.
I go to print media (or SDMB!) to learn about the issues, so the debate’s value for me is to observe debating styles.
If I understand the format, each 5-minute segment was divided as 2 minutes each plus a 1-minute “exchange guided by the moderator.” I saw Romney consistently monopolizing those 1-minute exchanges: he continually interrupted Obama, but acted indignant when Obama interrupted him. Is this what others saw?
My reaction (which I think would be the same if my partisan alignment were reversed) is that Romney was an obnoxious jerk.
My question: Did the “average” viewer see Romney’s interrupting as obnoxious … or as the “manly forcefulness” we want in a leader?
At this point, it’s about not having to admit they simply made all that shit up, as part of a completely-predictable Fox effort to portray Democratic leaders as soft on national security. Romney can no longer disavow it or rise above it, not without calling his base a bunch of fools at best, so all he can do is try to brazen it out.
The same goes for the tired “apology tour” lie, that he trotted out once again at the end. Obama didn’t (have the chance to) respond to it, but no doubt you’ll hear about it on Monday at the foreign-policy debate.
For anyone interested in a more dispassionate review of the timeline on the Benghazi post-attack discussion, here’s one from Think Progress. What’s nice is they give enough context to show where our right wing friends are cropping things or dissembling.
I continue to find the “scandal” unremarkable, and just another in the long sad line of “-gates” that conservatives have been desperately grasping for.
How about when asked about the math of his tax proposal…
“Well of course they add up. I was- I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget.”
Is it just me or is this just plain arrogance?
Neither, just a talking point.
Please cite specifically what wording Romney fucked up.