What’s news today?
The debate is the obvious choice.
I thought Pres. Obama did better, but I give the edge to Romney. He hammered the President on the economy and Benghazi. The President didn’t have a response really, and how could he when both were such obvious failures. The discussion on energy policy was much the same.
I thought the moderator did OK, until she lied trying to defend Obama on Benghazi. That kinda killed her credibility at that point.
From CommentaryMag
“Now that the Obama administration’s initial narrative that the Benghazi assault was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film has collapsed, the new spin from the White House is that President Obama has actually called it a terrorist attack all along.”
“Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.”
Read more here
The claims to the contrary by the moderator are revisionist history at best, or a lie.
Also Romney did a good job of pointing out Obama’s priorities after the attack.
From WFB
“Romney Blasts Obama for Attending Fundraiser After Benghazi
‘I think these actions taken by a president and leader have symbolic significance'”
Watch the video here
This video will leave you saying “Huh? What?”
The left leaning media is calling it an Obama win. But was it?
From RealClearPolitics
“A Frank Luntz focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters say they now support Mitt Romney.
“Forceful, compassionate, presidential,” one participant said.
“Confident and realistic,” said another.
“Presidential,” another told Luntz.
“Enthusiastic,” another reacted.
“Our next president,” one man said.
“Dynamo, winner,” said one more.”
Your thoughts?
Wandering Views 
To me it was very evident the moderator was biased. My mind is made up who I am voting for and these debates won’t make a difference.
LikeLike
I’m with Kim. I really wish that when Romney was hammering the administration’s failures to the one man, he would have taken time to bring up Obama’s statement about a “one term proposition”…
LikeLike
The poll numbers are still very, very close.
I didn’t hear all of the debate, but in listening to the portions I did catch on the car radio, I noticed that Obama was not doing the usual “uh, uh, uh” transitions he’s known for. They must have worked on that in particular during the lead-up to this debate.
When I saw clips later on television he looked almost livid at some points. But he did much better than he did in the first debate. Both of them held their own pretty much, but at this stage I think the president has lost a bit of his momentum — and I doubt that fact changed after last night’s debate, although his stronger showing clearly has energized his base a bit more.
LikeLike
Donna,
There were plenty of uh, uh, uh moments. I find it annoying. It also debunks the myth of his speaking prowess. No teleprompter, different speaker.
LikeLike
I thought Romney missed lots of opportunities. The format may have had something to do with that. But, he still missed some.
Like Kim, I knew I wasn’t going to vote for Obama three years ago.
LikeLike
It was definitely a format that Obama seemed more natural in. It seemed to take Romney a while to get his legs under him. The first question he had a chance to hammer and he really never gave specifics. He also thanked just about everyone in the country before answering the question. Not really, but it did seem like that wasn’t the best way to start off.
After the first couple of questions, he started getting specifics and his smarts really showed. He was definitely the smartest man on that stage. He also didn’t seem as natural at being “pushy” and I think that showed. I think some of the areas he was weaker were areas he had been coached but when he was giving facts and stats he was in his element and it showed.
I personally was frustrated when he would try to go back and clarify something from several minutes previous, taking time from important questions. My husband, however, saw it as important to point out Obama’s misstatements. So that was a matter of personal approach I think.
The interrupting and “yes you did” “no I didn’t” that both parties did drove me crazy and I had to distract myself with Twitter feeds to keep from turning it off during those segments.
Overall, Romney nailed the task of showing himself as smart and capable. Obama as usual came off as the guy you would want to have a drink with. But that isn’t necessarily the best person to run the country.
My mom has been an undecided voter but each debate has pushed her a little closer to comfort level with Romney. I’m wondering how many are in her shoes.
LikeLike
Bumper stickers are helpful.
Not being familiar with the local political situation, I’m at a loss to sort out the Court of Appeals and County Commissioner, for example.
But I know to vote against anyone who appears on the same bumper with Obama.
It may not be totally accurate, but it works for me.
LikeLike
Chas, that is a great deciding factor! 🙂
Obama held his own against Romney, and that makes him the winner? Maybe he won against himself, but not against Romney! I did see Obama making some of the goofy grin faces (similar to Biden’s) when Romney was speaking. My husband said the camera crews learned a lesson from the VP debates and did not do the split screen again. Very wise.
LikeLike
Pardon me for the following repeat of a post on the Live Stream Debate thread:
While Obama was stronger on offense against Romney than during the first debate, he royally lost it in terms of what he would effectively do differently during a second term. Essentially, he said he would subsidize the hiring of some 100,000 teachers and continue the failed policy of subsidizing green energy and jobs. Just yesterday in Massachusetts, the 123 Energy Corporation that received a $249 million subsidy from the Obama administration went bankrupt. In fact one can say that Obama himself is bankrupt when it comes to effective domestic and foreign policy during a second term.
Romney reiterated his strong and clear policy of serious changes on tax structure, spending, energy, and trade that will have a large effect on economic growth including jobs.
As to the supposed “independent” voters who asked the questions, this debate took place on northern Long Island, hardly a swing area; most of the questions came from Democratic leaning voters who at best were disappointed in Obama’s first-term performance.
If the Presidential Debate Commission seriously wanted a town hall forum with real independent and undecided voters, the debate would have taken place in a true swing-state, say, Ohio, Colorado, or Florida.
Should the American people vote Obama in for a second-term, which they might well do, they shall on the whole get the “government” they deserve.
LikeLike
Latest Gallup poll: 51% Romney – 45% Obama
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
LikeLike
One
Big
Affirmative Action
Mistake
America
LikeLike
The moderator lied on Benghazi? You can replay the Rose Garden comments and listen for yourself — it’s in English — regular English.
LikeLike
Really?
The very generic statement the president made about “acts of terror” (in general) just flatly conflicts with the administration’s peddling the story (for 2 weeks) about how it was the video and the “spontaneous” demonstration being to blame.
Why would he say we’re going to wait until we have all the information and then send his people out to push-push-push the “It-was-the-VIDEO” mantra, over and over again, on every TV show available? They weren’t waiting for any investigation, they had a scenario to push (for whatever reason) and they did that … until it was clear that it simply made no sense to anyone with half a brain.
LikeLike
CB , as Candy Crowley well understands, Obama spent two weeks, including on the on Letterman show and at the UN, emphasizing that the Benghazi attack was caused by an out of control demonstration caused by the You Tube video. His inclusion of the terror attack one line statement was hardly the main topic in the Rose Garden statement. In fact the intent of what he meant by “terror attack” in that statement is quite vague.
Candy Crowley was way out of line attempting a fact check correction of Romney in the middle of a debate in which she purported to be the moderator. The truth is she rather proved to be yet another liberal hack.
Robert McCain sums this up well as follows:
Yet Crowley’s intervention on the Libya question, which seemed an effort to help Obama, may have actually worsened the president’s larger problem. Crowley herself admitted in a CNN post-debate interview that Romney “was right in the main” in his criticism of Obama’s handling of the Benghazi attack. Meanwhile, on Fox News, Charles Krauthammer said that Crowley’s “incorrect and unfair” intervention had “contaminated” the debate. By highlighting the Libyan issue and adding a new element of controversy, however, Crowley inadvertently ensured that the administration’s failure in Benghazi will be the focus of post-debate news coverage — which is unlikely to improve Obama’s re-election chances. The facts of the Libyan debacle simply are not in the president’s favor, and the final debate — Monday at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida — is specifically devoted to foreign policy. The venerable Bob Schieffer of CBS News will host that debate, and is unlikely to repeat Crowley’s mistakes, which are sure to be a topic of intense controversy over the next several days.
LikeLike
To Crowley’s credit, she did try to elaborate on the fact that, yes, for 2 weeks the administration “line” was really quite different from saying it was a terrorist attack.
But the damage was done, she really should not have interjected the way she did as a moderator, appearing almost to be taking sides. When Obama shouted out, “Would you say that a little louder, Candy?” and people in the audience laughed & clapped, it was downright embarrassing.
Stacked much, you think?
After the ’08 campaign coverage, it’s simply hard for most people to take the media seriously. They see bias even when there may not be any. And that’s too bad. But the media has left itself wide open for all of this — it goes back further than ’08, but in so many cases the one-sided election coverage 4 years ago was just way beyond the pale. I’ve never quite seen anything like it (and I was one who used to defend most journalists as sincerely striving for strict objectivity).
Not any more, I fear.
Let’s hope people in the media eventually open themselves up to some self-searching before it’s too late.
Not holding my breath, however.
LikeLike
But with the next debate being on foreign policy, the mess that was Libya will surely be revisited. And that’s not a good thing for the administration.
LikeLike