Presidential Debate #2

[IDBillzFan]

Dont count on it...Bob Schieffer, that fair and balanced non-partisan is moderating.

 

Probably, but the public criticism Crowley took for breaking down the fourth wall to incorrectly side with Obama has to have an effect on Schieffer. Make him work harder to not come across so embarrassingly.

 

That said, there's a Daily Caller article today from Edward Klein stating he got word from what he calls one of Hillary's inner circle that she has cables showing she approved the extra security for Benghazi, and that it got tripped up somewhere else...like the WH. Maybe not intentionally...but it won't matter. Brett Baier tweeted this morning that Fox was looking into the story.

 

Here's the thing: love or hate 'em, the Clintons aren't stupid people. Just leaking this story, true or not, will keep Axelrod/Jarrett/Obama on the defensive and blabbering about "binders". Likewise, love or hate 'em, Axelrod/Jarrett/Obama ARE stupid people and would never think to check for CYA docs before trying to sell this entire "we called it a terror act before we spent two weeks blaming a video."

 

In other words, hell hath no fury like a scorned Clinton...and the WH Benghazi story, built on the ridiculous trust that imply/infer can save your ass, is likely going to blow up in Obama's face.

 

EDIT: Daily Caller story here... http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/hillarys-non-mea-culpa/#ixzz29eiKqlSW

Edited October 18, 2012 by LABillzFan

[jjamie12]

Did you cut and paste this from another one of your posts? The Obama "creds" bothered me the first time I saw this. They bother me enough now to respond. Obtaining a job is not a sign of success! Do something with it.

Some people think that Obama's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. Other don't. You obviously don't. That's fine.

 

Some people think that Romney's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. I'm pretty sure you agree.

 

Just because you don't like one guy's qualifications doesn't mean he's *not qualified*. TO YOU, he's not qualified, and, guess what? You've got the other guy to vote for if you think "doing something with it" matters. Plenty of other people really like President Obama's experience.

 

 

Personally, I find President Obama's narrative not at all compelling. I don't necessarily view 'being a good politician' as high on my priority list as others, but to deny that being a good politician is somehow not relevant to the Presidency is pretty shortsighted.

 

Conversely, I find Governor Romney's narrative to be extremely compelling. I think he's EXACTLY what we need. Frankly, I think he'll be a giant disappointment to someone like you -- I imagine you'll view him as having 'caved' too much to 'the Liberals' during his Presidency.

 

This idea that these two men are clowns or something is completely and totally ridiculous. Each of them, in very different ways -- ways you may or may not find compelling -- are extremely accomplished and generally worth voting for, given a particular view of the world. I don't really know what you're looking for in a Presidential candidate if you can't find it in either one of these guys.

[RkFast]

Probably, but the public criticism Crowley took for breaking down the fourth wall to incorrectly side with Obama has to have an effect on Schieffer. Make him work harder to not come across so embarrassingly.

 

That said, there's a Daily Caller article today from Edward Klein stating he got word from what he calls one of Hillary's inner circle that she has cables showing she approved the extra security for Benghazi, and that it got tripped up somewhere else...like the WH. Maybe not intentionally...but it won't matter. Brett Baier tweeted this morning that Fox was looking into the story.

 

Here's the thing: love or hate 'em, the Clintons aren't stupid people. Just leaking this story, true or not, will keep Axelrod/Jarrett/Obama on the defensive and blabbering about "binders". Likewise, love or hate 'em, Axelrod/Jarrett/Obama ARE stupid people and would never think to check for CYA docs before trying to sell this entire "we called it a terror act before we spent two weeks blaming a video."

 

In other words, hell hath no fury like a scorned Clinton...and the WH Benghazi story, built on the ridiculous trust that imply/infer can save your ass, is likely going to blow up in Obama's face.

 

EDIT: Daily Caller story here... http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz29eiKqlSW

 

Oh, I totally agree. As soon as I saw Hillary on TV falling on the sword, I KNEW the old dusty cover was being pulled off the Clinton machine and getting warmed up, just like Geddy Lee pulling a dusty cover off an old Ferrari.

 

Some people think that Obama's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. Other don't. You obviously don't. That's fine.

 

Some people think that Romney's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. I'm pretty sure you agree.

 

Just because you don't like one guy's qualifications doesn't mean he's *not qualified*. TO YOU, he's not qualified, and, guess what? You've got the other guy to vote for if you think "doing something with it" matters. Plenty of other people really like President Obama's experience.

 

 

Personally, I find President Obama's narrative not at all compelling. I don't necessarily view 'being a good politician' as high on my priority list as others, but to deny that being a good politician is somehow not relevant to the Presidency is pretty shortsighted.

 

Conversely, I find Governor Romney's narrative to be extremely compelling. I think he's EXACTLY what we need. Frankly, I think he'll be a giant disappointment to someone like you -- I imagine you'll view him as having 'caved' too much to 'the Liberals' during his Presidency.

 

This idea that these two men are clowns or something is completely and totally ridiculous. Each of them, in very different ways -- ways you may or may not find compelling -- are extremely accomplished and generally worth voting for, given a particular view of the world. I don't really know what you're looking for in a Presidential candidate if you can't find it in either one of these guys.

 

Thats an awesome post right there.

[IDBillzFan]

Frankly, I think he'll be a giant disappointment to someone like you -- I imagine you'll view him as having 'caved' too much to 'the Liberals' during his Presidency.

I think this is very true, but I think, too, much will rely on specifically what he's "caving" on. You absolutely must reach across the aisle to address the problems with our country. And if we're fortunate enough to knock Obama out of the WH and put in Romney, anyone who bitches about bipartisan deals on either side needs to ensure they explain what is is they don't like about the deal beyond "you can't work with those liberal idiots."

 

This is, in part, what brings Obama's leadership skills down to negative points (in addition to his now-well-known dislike for people in general). He never really TRIED to reach across the aisle. He just tried to create the perception that he was in hope both his base and detractors were as stupid as he is. Didn't work.

[GG]

Some people think that Obama's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. Other don't. You obviously don't. That's fine.

 

Some people think that Romney's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. I'm pretty sure you agree.

 

Just because you don't like one guy's qualifications doesn't mean he's *not qualified*. TO YOU, he's not qualified, and, guess what? You've got the other guy to vote for if you think "doing something with it" matters. Plenty of other people really like President Obama's experience.

 

 

Personally, I find President Obama's narrative not at all compelling. I don't necessarily view 'being a good politician' as high on my priority list as others, but to deny that being a good politician is somehow not relevant to the Presidency is pretty shortsighted.

 

Conversely, I find Governor Romney's narrative to be extremely compelling. I think he's EXACTLY what we need. Frankly, I think he'll be a giant disappointment to someone like you -- I imagine you'll view him as having 'caved' too much to 'the Liberals' during his Presidency.

 

This idea that these two men are clowns or something is completely and totally ridiculous. Each of them, in very different ways -- ways you may or may not find compelling -- are extremely accomplished and generally worth voting for, given a particular view of the world. I don't really know what you're looking for in a Presidential candidate if you can't find it in either one of these guys.

 

If I may quibble with one point it's that Obama supporters' list of qualifications for the job can be summed up as a blind faith for hope & change. He was arguably the least qualified nominee in two generations.

[3rdnlng]

Some people think that Obama's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. Other don't. You obviously don't. That's fine.

 

Some people think that Romney's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. I'm pretty sure you agree.

 

Just because you don't like one guy's qualifications doesn't mean he's *not qualified*. TO YOU, he's not qualified, and, guess what? You've got the other guy to vote for if you think "doing something with it" matters. Plenty of other people really like President Obama's experience.

 

 

Personally, I find President Obama's narrative not at all compelling. I don't necessarily view 'being a good politician' as high on my priority list as others, but to deny that being a good politician is somehow not relevant to the Presidency is pretty shortsighted.

 

Conversely, I find Governor Romney's narrative to be extremely compelling. I think he's EXACTLY what we need. Frankly, I think he'll be a giant disappointment to someone like you -- I imagine you'll view him as having 'caved' too much to 'the Liberals' during his Presidency.

 

This idea that these two men are clowns or something is completely and totally ridiculous. Each of them, in very different ways -- ways you may or may not find compelling -- are extremely accomplished and generally worth voting for, given a particular view of the world. I don't really know what you're looking for in a Presidential candidate if you can't find it in either one of these guys.

 

 

My objection to your prior post was completely directed towards Obama and his experience. Besides my philosophical differences with him I don't feel he is qualified because he has never had the responsibility to run anything before finding himself as the President of the United States. He won the election in 2008 because his opponent couldn't pin anything on him. The reason why? He never did anything of any real import and to criticize him for his minor failings only appeared petty.

 

I think Romney is well qualified for what this country needs, and I would expect him to win over his opposition somewhat and govern in a way that doesn't add to the partisanship so prevalent in this country today. Romney isn't a clown in any way.

[Doc]

Some people think that Obama's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. Other don't. You obviously don't. That's fine.

 

Some people think that Romney's resume is really, really great for a Presidential candidate. I'm pretty sure you agree.

 

Just because you don't like one guy's qualifications doesn't mean he's *not qualified*. TO YOU, he's not qualified, and, guess what? You've got the other guy to vote for if you think "doing something with it" matters. Plenty of other people really like President Obama's experience.

 

 

Personally, I find President Obama's narrative not at all compelling. I don't necessarily view 'being a good politician' as high on my priority list as others, but to deny that being a good politician is somehow not relevant to the Presidency is pretty shortsighted.

 

Conversely, I find Governor Romney's narrative to be extremely compelling. I think he's EXACTLY what we need. Frankly, I think he'll be a giant disappointment to someone like you -- I imagine you'll view him as having 'caved' too much to 'the Liberals' during his Presidency.

 

This idea that these two men are clowns or something is completely and totally ridiculous. Each of them, in very different ways -- ways you may or may not find compelling -- are extremely accomplished and generally worth voting for, given a particular view of the world. I don't really know what you're looking for in a Presidential candidate if you can't find it in either one of these guys.

Romney may be a disappointment. He might be a huge success. I don't know. I do know Barry has been a failure and I see no reason to believe things will magically get better with another 4 years of him.

My objection to your prior post was completely directed towards Obama and his experience. Besides my philosophical differences with him I don't feel he is qualified because he has never had the responsibility to run anything before finding himself as the President of the United States. He won the election in 2008 because his opponent couldn't pin anything on him. The reason why? He never did anything of any real import and to criticize him for his minor failings only appeared petty.

 

I think Romney is well qualified for what this country needs, and I would expect him to win over his opposition somewhat and govern in a way that doesn't add to the partisanship so prevalent in this country today. Romney isn't a clown in any way.

Actually the reason he won in 2008 was because he dug up dirt on his opponents, was never vetted by the MSM, and there was huge anti-GOP backlash at the time. Not to mention Sarah Palin. There was enough stuff to sink his campaign in 2008, but few bothered to look into it because of the historic nature of his candidacy and because the MSM is liberally-biased.

[wnyguy]

Also any criticism of Obama was labelled racism.

[UConn James]

Probably, but the public criticism Crowley took for breaking down the fourth wall to incorrectly side with Obama has to have an effect on Schieffer. Make him work harder to not come across so embarrassingly.

 

That said, there's a Daily Caller article today from Edward Klein stating he got word from what he calls one of Hillary's inner circle that she has cables showing she approved the extra security for Benghazi, and that it got tripped up somewhere else...like the WH. Maybe not intentionally...but it won't matter. Brett Baier tweeted this morning that Fox was looking into the story.

 

Here's the thing: love or hate 'em, the Clintons aren't stupid people. Just leaking this story, true or not, will keep Axelrod/Jarrett/Obama on the defensive and blabbering about "binders". Likewise, love or hate 'em, Axelrod/Jarrett/Obama ARE stupid people and would never think to check for CYA docs before trying to sell this entire "we called it a terror act before we spent two weeks blaming a video."

 

In other words, hell hath no fury like a scorned Clinton...and the WH Benghazi story, built on the ridiculous trust that imply/infer can save your ass, is likely going to blow up in Obama's face.

 

EDIT: Daily Caller story here... http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/hillarys-non-mea-culpa/#ixzz29eiKqlSW

 

Wow.

 

This presidency is in a !@#$ing shambles.

 

On the note of the moderators... is it just me, or does anyone else think they should get Watson --- the computer that competed on Jeopardy a couple-few years ago --- to host these things? It becomes more clear every cycle that what we have just doesn't work.

[3rdnlng]

All of the above.

[dayman]

It is absolutely amazing how retarded some of you are.

 

Mitt was fact checked b/c he spent time fixating on if "act of terror" was used, and was trying to make Obama look like a liar, he was instantly fact checked, was completely wrong. Get out of your bubble. Candy went on to acknowledge there was confusion over the video, which to Mitt's broader point can be said. But if you are angry that he was fact checked on "act of terror"...then you are a conservative bubble dumbass who is just angry Mitt looked bad so you find a way to pretend it didn't happen.

[IDBillzFan]

It is absolutely amazing how retarded some of you are.

 

Mitt was fact checked b/c he spent time fixating on if "act of terror" was used, and was trying to make Obama look like a liar, he was instantly fact checked, was completely wrong. Get out of your bubble. Candy went on to acknowledge there was confusion over the video, which to Mitt's broader point can be said. But if you are angry that he was fact checked on "act of terror"...then you are a conservative bubble dumbass who is just angry Mitt looked bad so you find a way to pretend it didn't happen.

 

BINDERS!!!!

[Koko78]

Crowley also surprised some observers with her talkativeness before the debate. Late Monday, she appeared on CNN and was asked by Wolf Blitzer what Obama needed to do avoid a repeat of his first debate performance, widely considered poor.

 

It was a natural question for CNN's chief political correspondent, but maybe not for a day before a debate she was moderating.

 

By contrast, Lehrer, who is semi-retired, turned down requests for interviews a week before moderating the first presidential debate. ABC's Martha Raddatz, who oversaw the vice presidential debate, also did not talk publicly about the debate beforehand. CBS News' Bob Schieffer, who is moderating the final presidential debate next week, has purposely stayed away from CBS' coverage of the first three debates to avoid being put in a position of commenting on the candidates.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/crowleys-corrections-highlight-moderator-role-145547432.html

 

Interesting that not only was she interjecting herself into the debate, but was going out of her way to draw attention to herself pre-debate.

[DC Tom]

It is absolutely amazing how retarded some of you are.

 

Mitt was fact checked b/c he spent time fixating on if "act of terror" was used, and was trying to make Obama look like a liar, he was instantly fact checked, was completely wrong. Get out of your bubble. Candy went on to acknowledge there was confusion over the video, which to Mitt's broader point can be said. But if you are angry that he was fact checked on "act of terror"...then you are a conservative bubble dumbass who is just angry Mitt looked bad so you find a way to pretend it didn't happen.

 

I'm still bugged that he was "fact checked" by the friggin' moderator. I couldn't care less that Romney looked bad.

[UConn James]

BINDERS!!!!

 

Bill Clinton weighs in on the subject...

 

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/156687_4507381209894_1437041021_n.jpg?dl=1

 

Edited October 18, 2012 by UConn James

[DC Tom]

Wow.

 

This presidency is in a !@#$ing shambles.

 

I don't see how this is much worse than Iran-Contra. That would have been an absolute cluster!@#$ with today's media cycle.

[IDBillzFan]

Rut-roh. Romney gains a point post-debate. Gallup daily has him up 7 nationally.

 

Time to ratchet up the binders meme.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

[Rob's House]

If we're talking about qualifications in an experiential sense, you'd have to say at this point, after being President for four years, you'd have to say Obama is qualified to be President just as you'd have to say Dick Jauron is qualified to be an NFL head coach.

 

Four years ago you couldn't make the argument that Obama was qualified even if you stretched really hard to do it. His resume was basically that of someone who got out of college, did an internship, got an entry level job (state senate), got promoted to a jr. executive spot (US Senate) and before learning the ropes or doing anything more than showing up for a couple of meetings where he sat quietly in the back, he's all of a sudden CEO of a major corporation. It was like it came straight out of the Hudsucker Proxy.

 

If we're talking about qualifications in the competency sense, Obama's not qualified to be President for the same reason Brad Smith isn't qualified to be a starting QB in the NFL. On paper all the qualifications are there, but he doesn't have the skill set to effectively perform the job.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't see how this is much worse than Iran-Contra. That would have been an absolute cluster!@#$ with today's media cycle.

 

I think your second sentence explains why this is much worse than Iran-Contra.

[dayman]

I'm still bugged that he was "fact checked" by the friggin' moderator. I couldn't care less that Romney looked bad.

 

I still don't get this. THey went back and forth over if the transcripts said this, he was trying to call his opponent a liar on a strictly factual question. The American people watching and in that debate are like "I have no freaking idea"...there is a right answer and she gave it. This is good. On Fox News afterwords you have people screaming "The time for fact checking is after the debate"...actually...in a situation such as that...it's during the debate. If you don't want to be wrong, then don't be straight up wrong about a black and white issue. And btw....nobody even did this to Mitt...Mitt was focusing in on this weird semantic "atc of terror" issue all on his own...so don't be mad at anyone but Mitt if you think it hurt him.