Led by the Biggest Baddest Muslim of them all: Barak Obama.
One exchange that I really enjoyed, that isn’t getting as much press this morning, was when Obama laid out the math of Romney’s plan and asked if the Governor would hire somebody with such a “sketchy” plan.
You win the thread.
Romney said “act of terror” which was the exact wording Obama used as a vague afterthought at the end of his Rose Garden speech the day after the attack.
This. Times ten.
It was not a vague afterthought. Read the transcript.
“…we will update you shortly with more details. Thank you…oh and ‘act of terror’”
drops mike
To the tenth power. When you have an unfolding incident in a nation with a fledgling government, the thing to do is make sure you know what you’re talking about and how to best say it before you open your big mouth. Romney was under no constraints, he was able to try to score political points while the bodies were still warm. You can’t do that as president, and you shouldn’t do that while running for president.
That’s not a fuck up in wording. He was quoting back what Obama had just said immediately before him. His problem was two fold. First, he was ignorant of the facts ( not knowing that Obama did indeed say that). Secondly, and more critically, he chose to follow a bunch of right wing morons down a superficial line of argument around what point a particular label has been applied.
Stolen from Daily Kos: Mitt Romney says that instead of equal pay, women should be allowed to go home so that they can make dinner.
This is where I am. I really don’t care when they knew it was a planned attack. I liked watching Obama hold Egypt’s feet to the fire for their lack of response. I even got a little excited thinking that congress might shut down all ‘aid’ to every country in the region.
But then it turned out to be a terrorist attack instead.
Of course it was. He talks about the YouTube video near the beginning of his speech and does not mention the word terror until near the end…and very vaguely. He deliberately did not specifically call the attack an “act of terror” but refers to vague"acts" of terror that will not shake our resolve. Make no mistake that his wording is very deliberate.
Here are the debate subjects, and a brief comment on each as to which candidate I think the subject, in and of itself, would be more helpful. As we all know, a candidate will chose to answer whatever question he wants, rather than the question actually asked. To try to decide which are better for a candidate once he starts talking would be, I think, impossible, so I make no attempt to do so.
- College graduates and employment - Offers Romney a chance to stress high unemployment
- Role of Energy Dept in lowering gas prices - Offers Romney a chance to stress high gas prices
- Romney tax cut - Offers Obama a chance to stress the nebulous nature of Romney’s proposed loopholes/deductions
- Workplace inequality - Offers Obama a chance to stress the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
- Question regarding Bush failings and how Romney is different - Offers Obama a chance to stress poor economy when taking office
- Questioner wants to know why he should vote for the president - This could go either way, Obama stressing successes and Romney the president’s failures
- Immigrants without green cards - Offers Obama a chance to stress the Dream Act
- Libyan security - Offers Romney a chance to stress security failures
- Availibility of assualt weapons - Offers Romney a chance to stress NRA support and an opening for mentioning the “Fast and Furious” investigation
- Outsourcing and how to keep jobs in the US - Offers Obama a chance to stress perceived problem’s with Romney’s Bain career
- Biggest misperception of each candidate - No comment on this wasted question.
Naturally there are discussions of issues that favor each party. This seems like a good balance to me and I think disputes the idea that the questions were loaded overall in anyone’s favor.
It comes down to why a candidate was interrupted, and there’s is NO WAY I’m going back through the debate to figure this out. One viewing is enough. 
Maybe there is something here, maybe not. Feel free to analyze each interruption and state your findings here.
It’s a fuck up in wording. Plain and simple. Apparantly “acts of terror” and “terrorist attack” have different meanings. If Obama wanted to imply that this was an act carried out by terrorists then he would not have mentioned the YouTube video and would not have sent Susan Rice out to all the Sunday news shows to tell us that the attack was “spontaneous” when they knew it was not.
I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about how Mitt fucked up at the debate. You appear to want to have a different discussion. Mitt didn’t misspeak. He misthought, misknew and misstrategized.
That’s why it suits them to have the general election at Halloween instead of at Christmas…
There is no mention of the video in the transcript.
[QUOTE=President Obama]
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.
[/QUOTE]
How is this vague?
Don’t be sorry. You quit debating with your last pathetic partisan post. As soon as you typed “right wing morons” I knew you were not interested in debate.
I listened to it on the radio, which adds an interesting perspective (by removing some perspective!) and it sounded like both guys were interrupting with equal frequency, but Romney did it more loudly (or Obama stopped talking when he did).
I never thought I’d hear something sadder than an attempt to parse the meaning of “is”, but here it, well, is.
In any case, no amount of retroactive spin will change the fact that Mitt getting an instant fact-check fail made him look like a class clown getting sent to the principal’s office.