Comments

1
Additionally, Obama couldn't have shown the anger and aggression that Romney expressed at various points. While it will go largely unremarked in the mainstream media when shown in Romney, it would have been seen as "dangerous" coming from a black man. That cold "please proceed" was the most anger Obama has ever expressed publicly, likely as much the result of personal temperament as the knowledge that one's own righteous anger is turned against minorities, especially black men.

It is a constant, exhausting uphill battle.
2
@1: White privilege through and through.

I wish more people could understand that Obama is not allowed to get fired up and indignant, even in the face of bald faced lies. He would be cast as an "angry black man" and something for white america to be feared, thus costing him votes.

Trust me, the right wing media outrage machine is just waiting and hoping that he will get angry at a debate. I am sure they already have the bylines ready to go.
3
Obama rid the world and Libyans of Gadhafi. Terrorists attacked and killed our ambassador with a barrage of rockets. I don't see how there's any fault. Bogus political Rmoney desperation. Remind Americans Gadhafi is finally gone.
4
To be fair, Charles, there are also some people who will never vote for Romney, no matter what, and people who never say anything good about him.

At this point, I don't think either Obama or Romney can be "destroyed."
6
@4 You twisted what Charles said. "Because you can always expect about 40 percent of voters to never say anything good about Obama. Never. That group is taking its hatred to the grave." He is clearly pointing out that those people will not allow themselves to even see Obama as an equal human being. Your knee jerk reverse racism thing here fails.
7
The saddest part of all, is that the Plutocratic Republicans are using this race-animus to get stupid working-class white people to vote for someone who will be far worse for them than the Democrat. It's purely a divide-and-conquer, cut-off-nose-to-spite-face scenario. Subtracting economic opportunity and the social safety net from pigmented people does not add it to white people.

In the Pigheaded v. Pigmented sweepstakes, no one wins.
8
@5 I'm not comfortable with the rape metaphor being thrown around regarding this debate.
9
@7 " Subtracting economic opportunity and the social safety net from pigmented people does not add it to white people. "

Wish I had said that. Well put.
10
30% of Americans still think the Civil War was a "draw".
11
@4,

There were a lot of liberals willing to admit that Obama lost the first debate. As much as liberals hate Romney, we're more willing not to be sore losers. Meanwhile, conservatives aren't going to give Obama credit for anything.
12
Mudede is exactly the reason only natural born citizens are allowed to be president.
13
The impact of that cold "please proceed" was all the greater because of the lingering effects of the stern dressing-down the President gave Romney just before, about the puerile suggestion that Team Obama didn't take the Benghazi attack seriously. That was a transformational moment in the campaign and in his Presidency, in which, possibly for the first time, he found a way to express anger and to do it as the leader of the Nation rather than as an "angry black man."
14
I'm an undecided voter. I think Romney would be better for the economy long term (I'm a supply side convert) and I agree with Obama's social policy positions.

I feel like Obama has done a good job with what he was handed, but I'm uncomfortable with many of the spending initiatives he's launched. I think the unemployment extensions have been particularly counter-productive. I do value him for his vision of social equality (I'm gay, and an ally for the rights of women.)

I think Romney would be an excellent president, he definitely knows how the economy works from a practical standpoint, and he has been an effective and successful executive his whole life, in many different roles. But I'm uncomfortable with his rhetoric during the primaries regarding social policy. He seems to be distancing himself from those positions now, and he governed in MA as a moderate. Still, who can tell?

I think it's okay to like both. I think it's better than hating one irrationally and praising the othe beyond reason. I also think both are effective at getting their ideas across. We have a good choice. Either way we're going to get a good president who will move our country forward. The question is which path do you want to take?

So, Charles, respectfully, I just can't say I credit your analysis with much. I don't think more people hate Obama than hate Romney. I don't think either are evil, and I think the economy will do what it's going to do almost regardless of who's elected.
15
@6,
Oh, I wasn't even thinking about racism, but about democrat vs. republican, liberal vs. conservative.

I mean, there are some people who would vote for a tin can if it were their party's nominee, simply because they always vote along party lines. That happens in both the major parties too.

But yeah, I see what you mean. There are still racists out there as well.
16
The 18-30 year olds whose future depends on this election through Supreme Court rulings and economic policies are the ones who are not voting.

The 60+ who already have Social Security, Medicare, etc. are the ones who want everything but want to deny it to future generations. They're the ones voting in droves.

How much you want to bet the people who grow up saying, "The Government Can't Do Anything" are the ones who didn't vote when they were younger.
18
@14 You remind me of G W Bush voters. And look how that turned out.
19
Labeling 40% as haters is a cockeyed as labeling 47% as freeloaders.

Was it racists that gave GWB drawish results vs Al Gore and John Kerry? Or was it just a plurality of non-hating garden-variety fools who bought into the supply-side drivel for the umpteenth time?
20
@14 People like you are precisely why I'm not inclined to give a shit about gay rights. Marriage equality is a no-brainer and gaybashing is for mental midgets, but I see way, way too many gays like you whose progressivism begins and ends with their own rights. Are you seriously fine with pulling the rug out from under the long-term unemployed, and telling families, sorry, there's nothing we can do about little Johnny's cancer, just so Mitt Romney can keep his Bush-given tax cuts? Do you seriously want to turn our economy over to a president who made his money by liquidating US companies, destroying jobs, and stashing the proceeds in Swiss bank accounts? Are you just fine with starting a war in Iran? If so, well, DIAF. 
21
This is a lie that’s going to catch up with Mr. Obama (if the press does its job at all). He did NOT call the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens an “act of terror” on 9/12/12 as he claimed last night and anyone who has been following the Benghazi cover-up knows it.

On 9/12/12 he called the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi” and an “outrageous and shocking attack” and referred to the attackers as “killers”. He then went on to allude to the YouTube video as the “justification” (cause) of the attack saying “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence” and continued on to refer to the attack as “brutal acts” by “attackers”. He then eulogized Ambassador Stevens and then reflected on the anniversary of 9/11/01 and eulogized the victims of that attack, and the soldiers lost in its aftermath, and in conjunction with those reflections said “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” (referring back to his earlier statement that “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others “ before pivoting back to 9/12/12 by saying “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” He then, again, referred to the perpetrators of the attack as “attackers”.

So, to recap, he called the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi,” an “outrageous and shocking attack,” “brutal acts,” and a “terrible act” and called its perpetrators “killers” and “attackers” but never, and nowhere, did he call the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “act of terror” (as he claimed last night) or refer to its perpetrators as “terrorists”. HE LIED AND CANDY COVERED FOR HIM BY REPEATING HIS LIE.

The transcript of the speech can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi…

I am sure it’s unnecessary at this time for me to recap the many statements made after 9/12/12 by the Ambassador to UN and the President where they both tied the attack directly to the YouTube video and a fictional mob of protesters or the multiple times the President and his Press Secretary were asked directly if the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens was an act of terror and they refused to call it such.
22
@21 -- You gotta be kidding me!
23
Just a side observation. But did anyone else notice how gray or even white Obama's hair was? Maybe it was the lighting, but it looked to me like he had about as much hair turn gray in the past two weeks as he did in the previous 3+ years.

Other than that, the prez looked good.
24
@1: Nah, that's bullshit. Obama showed more anger than I've ever seen in a presidential debate during the exchange that Charles quotes. Immediately prior to that, he took down Romney for politicizing the deaths of the Libyan delegation, flashing him plenty of angry glares in the process. And it worked in his favor.

The stereotype that Obama needs to worry about is the same one that plagued Al Gore - that of the mealymouthed, eggheaded professor who over-complicates everything and doesn't have the balls or decisiveness to lead. Last night, he very much played against stereotype.
25
@14 I think you miss the fine distinction between "getting their ideas across" and being a manipulative, sociopathic liar like Romney. If he was consistently saying anything that represented a set of principles, and explaining how he would implement them, then perhaps he'd be presenting actual ideas. He's not. He's pitching whatever he can throw, trying to strike out the other side. There are no ideas or principles being clearly articulated by Romney in this particular ballgame.

Whatever principles or ideas he actually holds are being intentionally obfuscated because he knows the majority of the public would oppose him for them.

And speaking of petty annoyances, I'm burned that Obama didn't pick up on Romney's line about dropping income taxes on dividends and interest. That would cut Romney's own taxes by over $2 million a year!
26
So.....

if Obama knew it was a terrorist attack the day after why was he going on about the video clip at the UN two weeks later?

ADD?
27
@26 -- You do recall - don't you? - That there were video-related protests, embassy damage, embassy intrusions, killings and other reprisals in a number of nations in that timeframe.

You do recall that, don't you? Or is it ADD?
28
"It's the economy, stupid."

Remember that one? Maybe not. It's what James Carville, my favorite Democrat of all time because he's one of the few who didn't put his testicles in a blind trust, said in 1992 about the Clinton campaign.

Same this year. People here can sputter and piss their pants all they want, but the reality is that the economy is barely treading water and everyone knows it. If not for the Federal Reserve holding short term rates at zero and pouring money into 10-year Treasurys thereby forcing mortgage rates to historic lows, this would be 1934 all over again.

This is Romney's issue. No one but the insiders really cares about Libya. All Obama needs to do is find a way to avoid the usual Democratic kumbaya trap. Which he did well when he shut Romney down over it.

And every time he reminds the audience that Osama bin Laden's dead, the audience meters hit the roof. Oooh rah! Beef: It's what's fer dinner! Rare and bloody. It's about time that a Democrat's fangs were seen to be as long and sharp as the Republicans' fangs. We're a vampire nation, not a christian nation.

But what we really are is hungry vampires. We want our Stuff. The only "god" this country has ever worshipped, and will ever worship, is the Almighty Dollar. Wet your pants over it if you must, but it's true. "It's the economy, stupid." And the economy breaks for Romney.
29
@21: "As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." (bolding mine)
30
@29
Right... in referrence to 9/11/01. Not 9/11/12. If he thought then that it was an act of terror, why did he call the perps "killers" and "attackers" instead of terrorists? Why did he refuse to call it an act of terror on The View and Lettermen. Why didn't he lable it as such in his UN speech?
31
he didn't use the specific words i wanted to hear! how dare he be diplomatic and cautious! only bluster is acceptable to me. launch a new crusade!
32
@25:
YES YES YES!!
I was practically jumping up and down when Romney said that line about dropping taxes on interest earned. I though that was a great opening line for Obama. Who does that benefit? The rich and well off!
Cutting taxes on interest and dividends definitely is a tax cut for the rich while cutting morgate deductions won't touch the rich but will hurt the middle class.
I'm actually in the category that would benefit by Romney's plan - I have no morgage, but I plenty of income from investments, yet there's no way I'm going to vote for him.
@28, Yes it is all about the economy, which is exactly why I'm NOT voting for Romney.
33
@14 [Romeny] definitely knows how the economy works from a practical standpoint,

You sound like a plant. Someone hired to cause doubt in left-leaning voters. But the sentence quoted shows how stunningly stupid you are. What could possibly lead you to this conclusion? Romney's given no specifics or explanations of how he'd make his ideas work. Tolkien is a better source for reality than Romney. His experience in MA is enough evidence to show that he doesn't know what he's doing.

The only thing Romney knows how to do is run for office. That's it. Self-promotion is his only job experience. Everything else, he's incompetent. Bush was a horrible president, by any & all standards. Romney will just be more Bush. Obama isn't perfect, and I have a lot of issues w/ him. But it's a choice between somewhat competent and blithering idiot. Which really isn't much of a choice.
34
#30 is a great example of how people can be shown in black and white how they are objectively wrong and still believe they are right.

I do not now if it is arrogance, or simple reluctance to ever admit fault. But I guess that is just arrogance as well.
35
@33 -- Romney's successful career in business, working with and in all sorts of companies, shows that he understands the economy and the issues that confront business in a global and highly competitive market. You might find some of his deals distasteful (like I do) but he was very successful in achieving goals. He was also a competent governor and manager of the Olympics -- I haven't heard any stories about him being an awful governor, he seems to have gotten that job done well. He's got a great executive resume. (I'm not a plant, I promise.)

@25 -- The elimination on interest and some other investment income is for people with incomes of $200,000 or less -- this is a middle- to upper-middle class tax cut, especially for retired people living off assets, not a cut for the upper class. Romney and the rest of the super-rich would not enjoy this cut.

@20 -- I'm serious about reducing a disincentive to work, there are plenty of charities to take care of little Johnny's cancer (and Romney did put in place a state-based health care system that covers more of the population that Obamacare will, and he seems open to helping states do that as an alternative to Obamacare), and Romney didn't make his money solely "by liquidating US companies."

Sometimes a company is performing so badly that you can buy it for less than its liquidation value -- its failure is not your fault, but the fault of the guy who sold it to you, the guy who ran it into the ground. If you buy it to sell off its assets for a profit, that may be distasteful, but at that point the company's employees are pretty much doomed anyway, so it's not like you're going out of your way to harm them.

Nobody wants to go to war right now. Everyone knows we can't afford another war. I don't see us going to war with Iran unless Iran makes that necessary, and I don't see Iran making that necessary.

I had to look up DIAF. I don't want you to DIAF. What a horrible thing to say.
36
Romney's now up 6 points in Gallup's daily tracker.
37
@14
Your problem with Obama is that he extended unemployment benefits...wow so you think the people choose to be unemployed and were just being lazy....wow.

McDonald's had a hiring event in April of 2011 and almost one million people showed up for only for 50,000 jobs but don't you worry your pretty little head about those lazy people.

ps supply side economic doesn't work, look around, what we have is the result of supply side economis.
38
@34
Please show me any article published on 9/13/12 that says "president calls attack act of terrorism" and I'll buy your line. Are you telling me that the POTUS can stand in the rose garden and say "terrorists killed our Ambasador" and the NYT isn't going to run the story?
39
@34
Hell. On OCTOBER 10th, I called the attack an act of terrorism in slog comments and here’s some of the responses I got:

“What evidence do you have that Ambassador Stevens was killed by terrorists? And before you get started, please note that "because Romney & The New York Post say so" is about as far from credible as you can get..” – Comte

(If Comte didn’t get the message by OCTOBER 10, the very least it says is that Obama is an abject failure at communicating basic facts.)

“Did the president lie? Or did he have bad information or maybe he needed to keep things under wraps FOR security reasons. Seems to me the Administration came clean once the facts were in.” – tkc

Clearly the Slogosphere didn’t hear him say any such thing in the rose garden on 9/12/12.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
40
@35,

Nice attempt at astroturfing.

Romney only effectively managed the Salt Lake City Olympics because he got a $1.3 BILLION bailout from the U.S. Treasury.

Go away now.
41
@40 -- I can promise you I'm not an astroturfer, and I've been reading here for a long time. I've been reading your comments for years. I've just registered to comment! And I'm not going away.

There's more to managing than getting money. Wasn't that $1.3b for enhanced security after 9/11, and then Romney used that money to get the whole thing on sure footing? I don't know, sounds like good management skill to me. I actually don't know the specifics of that situation, but nobody seems to have found a smoking gun in Romney's management of the Olympics. Everybody seems to at least begrudgingly admit he did a good job there.
42
#37, "supply side economics" was nothing but a new label for Say's Law.
43
@41: Only about 13% of the $1.3 billion was spent on security. 80% went to building up Salt Lake City's infrastructure, mostly in highway and mass-transit projects. For contrast, only $600 million of taxpayer money went to the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, and only $75 million to the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.
Hell, John McCain called it out as a political pork barrel.
44
#43, so only Boston is supposed to get federal pork barrel spending, then?
45
@44

Boston?
46
#44, yeah, ya fuckin' moron. Ya never heard of the Big Dig? Uncle Sucker's share dwarfed the federal spending on Salt Lake's transit.
47
@46

I was at 45, G.......yeah, I've heard of it. in the context of a response to venomlash's comment it seemed like a non sequitur. now that you've explained it, I get what you're saying, but seriously it's awfully Dennis Miller-esque.

could you take my and many other people on this blog's advice and chill the fuck out? do you wonder why you command the (lack) of respect you do here? it's pretty cool you have this image of Seattleites being pasty, ineffectual, progressive stereotypes and all, but a lot of people on Slog aren't from here. and a lot who are, like myself, would punch you square in the face for talking to us like this in real life. either learn to get along occasionally or deal with everyone thinking you're some astroturfer who will be gone come Nov 7th. fuck.
48
Suck my dick, #47. I'll be here after Nov. 7th.
49
@48 - no you won't
50
@48

Then grow the fuck up.
51
#50, I know where you'll be after Nov. 7th: Whining with all the other bedwetting Seattle "progressives" about how unfair it was that Fox News rigged the election.
52
@38: Why do you need an article claiming that, when it is in the president's own speech?

He said it, as you can easily see by the many people who have quoted the speech here on Slog for your benefit.

Your weird hair splitting, denial of reality is baffling. You are claiming he did not say words that are on tape, and transcribed forever in clear black and white.

Why exactly do you need a news article to prove to you that he said what he said? Are you claiming that secondary sources are somehow more reliable than primary sources?
53
uh oh.....

WASHINGTON DC (AP) — Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to 388,000, the highest in four months.
54
this is all so fucking delicious.....

forget the news reports.

scroll back to the fateful day, and those after, on Slog.

Slog was all "oh, those creep fundamentalists and their video...."

The Troll told you THAT DAY it was a PrePlanned Terrorist Assault™
but the Girls were all "No No- it was a riot...."

now you are gnawing each others raisin-sized balls off
trying to prove that Obama said it was terrorism....

so. fucking. delicious.
55
@51

you forgot crying and masturbating in the shower.
56
#55, too much information.
57
Now, now Lee, Mr G is probably just a little testier than usual because he's afraid if Romney wins he'll be losing the lease on that sweet trash can of his on Sesame Street.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.