Romney Debate Missteps

Update: Check out these photos of binders of women. Some are really funny.

The New York Times reports Mitt Romney had the most misteps in the debate.

Mr. Obama kept his eyes on his Republican opponent, whereas Mr. Romney’s gaze kept straying over to the moderator, Candy Crowley...

Mr. Romney had more bad moments than the president, particularly when he challenged Mr. Obama’s claim that he early on called the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a terrorist attack, and Ms. Crowley backed Mr. Obama’s version of events. Mr. Romney stammered a bit after that, blinked as the president spoke and never quite got back on a steady, confident foot.


On Tuesday night, he made another such misstep, acknowledging his wealth, investments in China and the Cayman Islands, by telling Mr. Obama that he should look into his pension plan because he, too, had such investments. Mr. Obama looked amused, saying: “You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it — it doesn’t take as long.”

Then there was his comment about having "binders full of women." And the rudeness:

Mr. Romney was even more belligerent than last time, almost rude, cutting off Mr. Obama in midsentence with the words: “You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.”

And a zinger by Obama:

He said Mr. Romney was a good man, but one who behind closed doors thinks that 47 percent of Americans consider themselves victims.

Some blasts from Mitt's past:

  • Is $100,000 middle income?" -George Stephanopoulos
    "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less." -Mitt Romney, ABC's "Good Morning America," Sept. 14, 2012
  • "When you give a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important." –Mitt Romney, when asked about failing to mention the troops in his nomination speech at the Republican National Convention, Fox News interview (Sept. 7, 2012)
  • "He [Obama] says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." —Mitt Romney at a campaign event in Council Bluffs, Iowa, June 8, 2012
  • We have a president, who I think is a nice guy, but he spent too much time at Harvard, perhaps." —Mitt Romney, who has two Harvard degrees (April 5, 2012)
  • "I'm running for office for Pete's sake, we can't have illegals" –Mitt Romney, recalling his reaction when he learned that there were illegal aliens working the ground on his property, employed by a firm that he subsequently fired (October 2011)
  • "It's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." —Mitt Romney, speaking in 2007 about killing Osama bin Laden
< Romney Shows His Dominant Trait: Rudeness | The Moment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nothing Important (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by koshembos on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:49:02 AM EST
    In the end endless exchanges, posturing, personal attacks, telling of lies and attempts to impress the debate did nothing to illuminate the potential reality we are going to face with either men.

    Romney doesn't want us to understand that his plan will bring back the middle ages. Obama doesn't want us to see that he intends to implement an austerity plan that will make us into Spain.

    They both accomplished their goals, therefore.

    Thank you for sharing that .. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 05:07:18 AM EST
    ... interesting and unique combination of generality, sarcasm and hyperbole.

    If only Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    had argued for the proletariat seizing the means of production then he surely would have grasped the crucial voting bloc you represent.

    Please... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    we don't expect (nor want) Karl Marx...a free market capitalist who believes in equality under the law, a level playing field, and inalienable rights would suffice.

    Binders Full of Women was really funny. But... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 05:16:49 AM EST
    the most astonishing part of that segment to me was the part where Mittens answers a question on pay equity for women by talking about the importance of flex time so that women can get home in time to make dinner.

    Um...  yeah. Because we really just need to remember to get home and get cooking. Okaaaay.

    That was really funny to me, too. I heard that (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 05:54:21 AM EST
    line as I was driving home from my work...and I thought to myself, "Damn, it's 8:30 and I haven't got dinner on the table yet."  NOT.

    Mitt is so clueless that it is beyond pathetic.  He is such a stupid man.


    Telling that Mitt did not know any qualified (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 07:52:08 AM EST
    women from his days in business and had to go looking for binders at all. Guess they were not in his club.

    Oh he essentially (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    endorsed the archaic version of Affirmative Action that still exists only in conservative circles-- he wanted to hire a woman because she was a woman.

    There were no women partners (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    at Bain Capital during Romney's tenure so it's apparent the women in his binder weren't the hiring type at that time.

    what was really offensive to me was (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:04:45 AM EST
    Romney's assumption that all women who work have to run home to cook dinner for their families, or deal with their children; it was as if single women, childless women, older women just don't exist, and he's a super-duper, hip and happenin', ahead-of-the-curve feminist because he was willing to be flexible about the work day.

    What women have learned is that flexibility comes at a price, and Romney never addressed that.  Did the woman who had to leave by 5:00 every day make as much money as the woman who didn't, or, more importantly, the man who didn't?  I'm guessing not, but he never really answered the pay inequity question.

    Obama didn't either, for that matter, but at least he managed his non-answer in a way that wasn't as tone-deaf and demeaning as Mitt "everyone should be married" Romney.


    In fairness (none / 0) (#56)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:05:41 PM EST
    to Mitt, childless women wont exist in his world unless they're infertile, gay or celibate.

    ugh (none / 0) (#57)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:06:14 PM EST

    I think Romney was trying ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:04:40 AM EST
    ... to allude to the wingers' favorite red herring on this subject - namely, that the reason for any pay difference is that women work less than their male counterparts.  Many studies have controlled for this (and other) variables and have demonstrated that this is not the difference for the gender gap.

    ... and, of course, he was trying to show empathy with working women.

    I've got to dig up a clip of this part of the debate (I didn't watch).


    I saw it and that was my take (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:13:55 AM EST
    They don't expect much out of me, but they will be happy to throw me some pin money while they conquer the world.  I'm not expected to compete with the boys though, which growing up was a nice way of telling me that I'm not supposed to compete with boys or aspire to do things that boys do.

    Dirty Dancing (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    No One Puts Baby in a Binder.

    #binders full of women

    Kidding aside I think there is a real workable angle here with Mitt/republicans and binding women.


    You mean like someone saying, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    "Well, if you consider the policies of Romney and Ryan as they pertain to women, it won't be so much that Romney has "binders full of women," but that he will be a binder "of" women - of their freedom to, among other things, make health care choices on their own."

    I'd be willing to cut the guy some slack on this if it turned out he'd actually had the idea to get more women into his administration when he was governor, but as we all know now, he didn't.  

    I would love for someone to ask him, "What is the Mormon Church's position on lying?  How do you, as a former missionary, former pastor and alleged counselor square your demonstrated penchant for lying about pretty much everything, and choosing a running mate with the same problem, with your faith?"

    Maybe Mitt's special Mormon undergarments have to be treated with fire retardant considering how often his f-ing pants go up in flames; now, if his candidacy would only follow suit and blow away in the dust and ash...never to rise again.


    Well Considering.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:56:09 AM EST
    ...that every republican politician and Fox News anchor is a Christian, which abides by roughly the same religious tenants; not sure why Mitt would be any different.  Well except for the fact that Mitt doesn't actually wear his beliefs on his sleeve.

    And when you consider the life of jesus and the modern day religious right, squaring just isn't in the cards for the right.


    I didn't (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 07:26:04 AM EST
    see Obama directly responding to Romney's assertion that his, Obama's, pension plan also invests in China.

    Obama, to me, looked as if he too was caught in some bs, since he had accused Romney of having a pension plan that invests in China.

    Obama's response, a deflection - using the occasion to refer to Romney's wealth - didn't even make sense.

    "You know, I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours, so it -- it doesn't take as long."

    He doesn't look at his pension --- because it doesn't take long to do so?

    And both of them were jumping on China.

    I don't know what it is about going the route that Trump trumpeted during his brief moment in the political sun, but I for one am not interested in a confrontation with a nuclear power to whom we are heavily in debt. Only the Social Security Trust fund and the Federal Reserve treasury investments are bigger holders of publicly held US debt.

    One big oy.

    Both of them are talking about coal. Lots of coal. Obama claims his coal is "clean". Clean or dirty, coal is generally thought to be toxic to our environment. Another oy.

    Obama was, of course, more knowledgeable and more personable than Romney. Romney's eyes looked like evil little laser-marbles to me.

    But both of them continuously engaged in the practice of first thanking the questioner for their question, and then avoiding answering it. One of the most cringe-worthy moments for me was when a man - a black man - prefaced his comment by saying that he had voted for Obama, but now he found that the expenses of everyday life were eroding his sense of hope.

    Obama's answer was, understandably, all over the place. He killed Bin Laden. He reined in the excesses of Wall Street. (!).

    What I wish he had done, and find inexplicable that he did not, was blame the Republicans in Congress for sabotaging his efforts to improve life for those Americans struggling to find work or pay their bills. I just don't get why he doesn't pillory those right-wingers. Unless he is still trying to coddle them - or because there are plenty of them in the Democratic party as well.
    Or he is just not that committed to an alternate course. I can only guess.

    In any case, I find it disturbing to hear a question from a citizen, one of the rare times we are vicariously allowed to confront those asking for our vote, ignored in favor of a recital of agenda-driven verbiage. Both of them did that with virtually every question.

    Pick your poison. That would be my refrain.

    Sometimes Romney appeared to be crazed. And stupid. And dangerous. He also, to me, seemed to be trying to affect a Reagan inflection in his voice. Ick.

    Obama appeared to be more in control of facts, and more personable.

    But I can't say that I am looking forward to four more years of whatever this administration is.

    It would appear that we are about to pick the poison whose bottle is more familiar and can be sipped slowly. Who can blame us?
    Twist or olive?

    Obama's response on the pensions (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:15:04 AM EST
    was more of a defense against hectoring by a maniac than a real answer. Of course many of us have retirement accounts that are probably partially invested in Chinese companies.

    I think the memorable part of that exchange will be Romney's hectoring and Obama's humorous deflection, not the implications of China policy.


    I (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:36:31 AM EST
    didn't consider the deflection to be humorous.

    It made me want to know about his plan - and all of our plans.

    How common is it for us to be invested, with or without our knowledge, in China - all the while blustering about them Chinese?

    Obama was caught in the trap he laid for Romney.

    But changing the subject to Romney's wealth seemed to do the trick.

    But not for me.

    An irrelevant observation:
    Romney's wealth - considerable - is about half of that of Larry David's.
    Yet - I would sooner vote for Larry.


    I wasn't bothered by Obama's deflection (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    at all; I have a 401(k) and I couldn't tell you what the various funds I have are invested in, and I don't have the time or the expertise to self-direct my plan so I can make sure I don't have any Chinese investments.

    What bothered me about that exchange was Romney's bullying behavior, moving with aggression and belligerence into what I would consider to be Obama's personal space; do you remember how negatively that affected Al Gore when he did something similar in a debate with Bush?  

    I was wishing that Obama had said, "Well, Mitt, the thing is that as president, I really do have to be concerned with what's happening right now on so many fronts there aren't enough hours in the day to always get to, so I don't have the luxury of spending a lot of time looking at my retirement account.  What I do know is that someone who has a retirement account that's valued at over a hundred million dollars, should probably not be spending as much time trying to find ways to cut the benefits of those at the other end of the financial spectrum, because at some point, that looks less like being a good steward of our safety net programs and more like just being mean."

    You know I am not a big fan of Obama's - but even I can cheer for Obama doing what he can to reveal the real Mitt Romney and wake people up to how appallingly bad Romney/Ryan would be for this country.  I have the luxury of living in a blue state that will go for Obama, so I can vote for the candidate-no-one-will-give-a-microphone-to - Jill Stein - with a clear conscience.  

    In the meantime, the more of the Romney mask that gets pulled off, the better.


    Of (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    course you don't have the time to self-direct your plan. And you shouldn't have to. But then, you don't go about accusing someone of investing in something in which you also have invested. I think the burden is more on the President of the United States to know what the common practice is for portfolio management. I know I would like to be informed on this matter.

    Where we can certainly agree is that part where you post what you wish Obama would have said. It was great. I wish he had said that also.

    But it seems since the beginning of Obama's tenure, people have been suggesting to him what he should say, or what they wish he would say.

    He never does or did.

    I'm glad you have the opportunity of voting for someone you believe in without having to worry about potentially contributing to a Romney victory. And you can do so without having to vote for someone of whom you are not a big fan either. A double plus.


    Depends... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:06:21 AM EST
    ...was he referring to direct investments, as in partial owners of Chinese companies, which I suspect, versus a fund that might have an inconsequential investment in a Chinese company.  That would certainly fall in line with Obama question and answer.

    One is a direct investment and the other is more of a hedge against the other investments in the fund.  Entirely two different concepts.  I could be wrong, but seems like Obama would bring it up unless he knew Romney was a direct investor.

    It also to goes to his mem that Romney doesn't care how he earns his money, because the green is more important than the red, white, and blue. And should he be in charge, the green will come first.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    they are different concepts - but the reality would appear to be that billions of our invested money is going to investments in China.
    "Inconsequential" individually perhaps, but collectively?

    And -are you saying that an investment as a hedge against other investments is not an investment? Are you also implying that an investment in China is likely to be a secure bet? Or a more secure bet? Just asking.

    Nevertheless, this little exchange between the two contestants raised questions for me.

    Either we condemn investment in China, or we depend on it. Which is it?


    It's an Investment... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    ...but the goal is to spread risk, which should be the goal of everyone investing.  It's why nearly all funds have some investment in China and many other foreign investments.  

    Whereas others are buying ownership of foreign companies for another purpose, to get returns.

    One is a backup plan in case our economy takes a dive, the other is increasing the odds that it will happen.


    PS (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:18:29 AM EST
    I didn't actually notice the body language of which you spoke - Mitt moving in on Obama.

    I do remember a horrific example of that during Hillary Clinton's campaign for Senator of New York. She was running against a fellow named Rick Lazio - and during one of their debates, he crossed across the stage to where she was standing. It made my hair stand on end. Truly threatening behavior - and it was generally perceived as such.

    The body language of the whole spectacle reminded me of a prize fight - with the two of the seemingly circling each other. And when one went back to their stool, the other came forward toward. It resembled fighters going into their respective corners waiting for Candy to ring the bell.


    The context was definitly that Romney (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    was moving in on Obama. Fromt he depth perception of the camera I can't tell how close he got, but it was closer than I would have felt comfortable.

    I agree with your points in the context of having an intelligent conversation at podiums or at a table, but in the context of having this guy coming at you and invading your space, yelling questions at you....I think Obama responded well. Just laugh him off with an insult and move on.


    imo, Investment in China is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ding7777 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:44:58 AM EST
    common. Even if your 401(k) has Apple, Ford, IBM, etc, it is still a China investment.

    btw, the good news is that by 2015 (because of higher wages, product turn-around)the cost of manufacturing in China will start to be on parity with the US - some US companies have already started to reshore jobs


    Which leads to a great follow-up question... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:03:47 AM EST
    is there no better way for Americans to retire comfortably after working for 45-50 years than having grifters gamble their money on companies shipping jobs to China?

    If Candy had asked them that, I would put her on page 1 in my binder full of women;)


    Thank you for the China parity info (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:50:45 AM EST
    here's a link to the press release (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ding7777 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    The Bad News (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    ...this is being countered by moving the manufactures to Taiwan.  Which is being groomed to be the next China as far as manufacturing capabilities and prices.

    Taiwan??? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Rojas on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:53:12 PM EST
    Exactly. Doesn't compute. (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    I'm calling bullsh*t.... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 08:56:27 AM EST
    on Mitt the Stiff having any binders full of any women.  What woman in her right mind would give that guy the time of day, much less personal information?

    Now if ya told me Bill Clinton has binders full of women, that I'd totally buy.

    I was watching the debate with my apolitical smoking buddy who never votes, couldn't care less who the president is, and hardly ever pays attention to politics...it was interesting reading his reactions. I knew my bullsh*t detector was not being skewed by my strong anti-Romney bias when my buddy was saying the same things I was thinking, such as "is this Romney guy for real?" and "there's something wrong with him."  My buddy called bullsh*t on alotta Obama's points too, but it was clear who was shoveling more of it...Mitt the Stiff.

    Here ya go (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    re Bill Clinton and binders full of women; see the second work of art going viral.  His expression is perfect; I picture exactly that look on his face, watching every line from Romney last night.

    Eclipsed by (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:30:03 AM EST
    Mittens' binders are people too, my friend--even binders full of women, was his paean to the tenets of affirmative action; seeking the benefits of diversity and taking steps not to overlook qualified applicants.   However, his binders full of ___(fill in the blank with any category of people not treated to an even playing field) betrays not only his shallow commitment (although probably not shallow enough for his base), but also, his disrespect.  In the instant case, his disrespect for the role of women in the workplace, if not the role of women, generally.

    Romney even lied about the binder (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:39:15 AM EST
    Apparently, the "binders full of women" that Romney said he requested was not put together at his request.  It was put together by a bipartisan coalition of women's groups even before the election - not in response to a request by Romney.

    Moreover, while Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, a UMass study found that the percentage of senior-level women appointees actually dropped under Romney.


    Maybe they were all home making dinner ...

    That's whats going to hurt (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    Its a gaffe, but its a gaffe that highlights the biggest flaw in Romney's character-- that he's a sociopathic liar.

    Who apparently chose another (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    sociopathic liar to be his running mate.

    Somewhere in all of this is a role for Jon Lovitz...


    Yes, I saw this on the news this morning (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:51:16 AM EST
    How Many Binders... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    ...did he look through at Bain.  Or the better question, how many women held important roles at Bain ?  None.

    Crowley admited she was wrong on Benghazi... (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by redwolf on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 01:55:37 AM EST
    after the debate was over. Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack till weeks later.

    The real killer moment of this debate was Obama saying he'd sign an assault weapon's ban.  That's not going to play well with gun owners.   Cal guns went from 45%-55% Obama vs Romney to mostly pro Romney or rather anti Obama after that.  Leave our guns alone or pay for it.  I wasn't going to vote for anyone but I'll punish Obama for that one.

    Obama's words were "acts of terror". (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:08:44 AM EST
    So, yeah, he didn't say "terrorist attack," but seriously,  you're going to quibble about that?

    Because they lied to us about a roit... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by redwolf on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:13:55 AM EST
    over a film for 2 weeks that never happened! It was nothing more than a straight up terrorist attack.

    When you're in a hole, stop digging. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:19:17 AM EST
    You are grievously misinformed.

    Please show some respect for the deceased, and stop peddling an obviously fabricated right-wing controversy.

    Don't give me cause to embarrass you further in front of everyone.


    Hey moron (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:20:44 PM EST
    there was a riot, and a terrorist attack, I realize conservatives like simple explanations, and like thinkn history started 4 years ago, but can someone tell me why an attack on a US outpost is something we should hold against Obama, but a direct attack on the US mainland which kills 3000+ was a cause to rally around an incompetent.

    Because after the 3,000 (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    were killed, Bush boldly and ingeniously protected us all from another attack. And then Obama used Bush's already-in-place-policy to get Bin Laden.

    And only socialists and Satanists believe otherwise.


    BS (none / 0) (#30)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:06:16 AM EST
    If there was a "lie", quote it.

    Otherwise, you're just making $hit up.


    The contention of (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:04:18 AM EST
    Romney was that he found it "interesting" that the president claimed to have said at the Rose Garden address that the Benghazi attack was "an act of terror" and that (after the president said proceed Governor) Romney wanted that claim of the president stating it was "an act of terror", a statement Romney disbelieved the president said,  noted for the record.  And, that record would show a lie.  On this point,  Candy had it right.  Romney had it wrong.

    That is indeed what they are going with (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 05:54:20 AM EST
    Must have been the immediate FOX marching orders after the debate. My sister's friends on FBI were dutifully parroting it.

    Oh, bull$H!+. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:01:44 AM EST
    FYI, here's video of President Obama's September 12 remarks in the White House Rose Garden, the day after that attack in Benghazi.

    And further, here's video footage of President Obama's September 13 remarks in Golden, Colorado  Golden, Colorado -- two days after the Benghazi attack:

    "What I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me, to all those who will do us harm, that no act of terror will go unpunished, it will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world, no act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America." (Emphasis is mine.)

    So, I'd suggest that you pull yourself out of the right-wing fever swamp that's Fox News and Michelle Malkin -- who, by the way, are actually peddling the canard that CNN is walking back the fact-check, and not Candy Crowley.

    Crowley is doing no such thing, because she and Obama are right. Mitt Romney is dead-wrong -- and so are you.


    Bull$H! Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Mojo56 on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:24:57 AM EST
    If Obama knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack as early as 9/12 then why did he allow Susan Rice to make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows of 9/16 and make a complete ass of herself? Why did Obama do the Letterman show on 9/18 and blame the video? Why did Obama do The View on 9/24 and blame the video? Why did Obama go in front of the United Nations on 9/25 Obama and blame the video?

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Lacy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 07:37:31 AM EST
    Ambassador Rice has also been demonized incorrectly and the right has lied about her words also.

    Her message that Sunday morning was that evidence available at that time showed a protest was in progress in Bengazi which heavily armed extremists used as a cover for an attack on the compound.

    That explanation has not even yet been shown to be incorrect.


    Rice on Face the Nation (none / 0) (#22)
    by Lacy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 07:46:34 AM EST
    "Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy - sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outiside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that - in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent ... We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

    Probably because ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:22:43 AM EST
    1)  As Rice noted, that was their best assessment at the time:

    Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That 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. 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.

    But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment.

    2)  the investigation is ongoing, and there is substantial evidence that the attack was motivated by the video - including the statements by the attackers and groups allied with them:

    To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.


    The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

    and 3)  "Act of terror" and "motivated by the video" are not mutually exclusive.


    Don't you get (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    Dem administrations are supposed to either be omniscent or jump to conclusions will GOP ones can have the worst attack on the US mainland since the Civil War and its a rallying point.

    You know, back here in the real world ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 04:56:01 AM EST
    ...where the rest of us reside, as opposed to the parallel universe which you and redwolf appear prefer to inhabit, a given situation doesn't remain static in perpetuity.

    Initial assessments of any such given situation -- i.e., the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- will be repeatedly re-evaluated, and findings are updated accordingly as further information and intelligence are obtained and analyzed during the nominal course of investigation.

    Thus, the story of the Benghazi attack as it might have been understood in mid-September has naturally evolved, simply because we know much more now about what happened than we knew one month ago.

    Now, as to why you and redwolf somehow refuse to grasp that particular concept and instead cling stubbornly to a patently disingenuous meme, I refuse to speculate regarding your personal motives.

    Suffice to say, however, that life itself on Planet Earth tends to unfold in ad hoc fashion, and doesn't necessarily conform or adhere to the script of an episode of 24 or Hawaii Five-O.

    And with that, I bid you aloha.


    honestly Obama was too gracious (none / 0) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:24:02 PM EST
    I mean he could have noted that when he says such acts wont go unpunished he has "credibility" (to borrow Paul Ryan's description of a hypothetical Romney Admin's Iran edge), whereas we all know Mitt doesn't think its worth our time or money to go after people.

    obama has always supported (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 03:41:33 AM EST
    an assault weapons ban.  He said he would try to reinstate it during the 2008 campaign. In 2009 Eric Holder said they would try. He's been consistent on that. News article from 2009 here.

    He was never going to get the gun lobby vote (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 05:09:38 AM EST

    The NRA has been spending over a year and untold millions on going "ALL IN" (that's the lead slogan in their advertising) and making clear (A) this is the most important election in all of history (I'm not overstating) and  (B) their unalterable opposition to Obama and every Democrat.

    If you're not seeing this, that's because you're not looking or you're not looking in the right place.

    So, Obama was being consistent and blowing off a constituency he had no hope of winning in the first place.  


    just HOW thoroughgoing (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    exactly is this psychiatric screening they do for the average assault weapon fan?

    Just the fact they they keep pushing this "first they'll come for the assault weapons, then they'll come for Junior's BB gun" meme, suggests a level of paranoia verging on the clinical..(just the kind of folks one wants with an assault weapon..)


    Better to "punish" w/your vote (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:00:19 AM EST
    than w/your gun. Are you a single-issue voter?

    No. (none / 0) (#5)
    by redwolf on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:21:25 AM EST
    I just don't see a difference between the two.  Both will allow bankers to continue looting and ripping people off while shoveling them free money from the federal reserve(Hamp anyone?).  Both will continue fighting pointless wars.  They're talking about staying past 2014 in Afghanistan now.  Neither will legalize drugs or end police militarization.  Both will continue letting wall street steal everything that's not nailed down. Neither will do what's required to fix the economy(Debt Jubilee for regular people to clear the system).  Both will probably try to take my away guns from abiding people while ignoring our repeated failures to enforce the laws that removes guns from the hands of mental patients.

    Given how both candidates seem bought and paid for by wall street what's the point?  So I choose to punish the candidate who openly calls for removing my second amendment rights.


    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    name one bill, regulation or executive order that Obama has signed or pushed since his inauguration that significantly infringes on your 2nd Amendment rights?

    C'mon, be nice now (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed person is so beneath you.

    Romney already (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    signed an assault weapons ban.

    NY Times? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by diogenes on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 05:26:07 AM EST
    Isn't there a less partisan source than the NY Times that you can use to give you a debate scorecard?  The Times has had nothing good to say about anything Romney or Ryan has done in this campaign.  
    Is this spin or are there really no other scorecards out there?

    Did your browser come without a (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 06:31:56 AM EST
    search engine of any kind?  

    If what you see here isn't what you're looking for, no one's stopping you from seeing if there's something else out there that is more to your liking.

    Did you not watch the debate?  If you did, why do you need any media outlet to tell you how the candidates did?  And if you didn't, I hate to tell you, but the media's version of who won and who lost and why may not bear any relationship to what took place on that stage last night - it hasn't up to this point, which is why I sacrificed time I will never get back to watch for myself.


    BTD invoked the media first (none / 0) (#73)
    by diogenes on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 11:35:23 AM EST
    If all you need to do is watch the debate, then why did BTD start things by invoking the NY Times as a scorekeeper?

    Chances are even BTD can't answer (none / 0) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 01:58:38 PM EST
    that question...since it was Jeralyn who wrote the post.

    When you can't even correctly process the details that are right in front of your face, it reduces most of what you say here to meaningless drivel.


    Here's another gem from Mittens' past: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 02:26:32 AM EST
    "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love!"
    - MITT ROMNEY (January 2012)

    On the scale on presidential campaign inanity, that one ranks right up there with Thomas Dewey's vacuous assertion to the 1948 GOP convention that "[y]ou know that your future will always be ahead of you."

    I think (none / 0) (#40)
    by sj on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:57:13 AM EST
    Dewey sounds downright wise in comparison.  In fact, that makes Bush "putting food on your family" almost sound normal.

    Romney or Colbert? (none / 0) (#64)
    by unitron on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:26:41 PM EST
    Cause that line sounds like something you'd expect from the guy who wrote "I Am America (And So Can You!)".

    Obama's humor (none / 0) (#75)
    by emily16 on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    "One good way to destroy an enemy is to turn him into a joke." I read this quote in a fantastic new book "Lincoln and Obama" by Gene Griessman. Griessman does a lot to compare the two Presidents, but where I see it most is the wit they both display when confronting their opponent. Obama has clearly provided a plethora of zingers aimed at the GOP candidate, and I think it is highly effective. Lincoln did the same thing with Stephen Douglas over 150 years ago. I find it interesting the depth and level of wry humor displayed by the president. However, as a grad student in public health, Romney's future plans for womens health may be a joke, but its a bad one.

    I strongly encourage people to check out Lincoln and Obama. It is a quick read and highly relevant to our current political situation.

    Lincoln and Obama poster (none / 0) (#76)
    by emily16 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:48:35 PM EST

    Gene Griessman, author of the new book Lincoln and Obama, is giving free downloads of a striking graphic by Sergey of Lincoln and Obama. There's no catch, and there's absolutely no charge  The download can be used for a poster, artwork, for tee shirts, coffee mugs, etc. http://ow.ly/eKtDR