The debates are over. Now voters must decide which man, President Barack Obama or former Gov. Mitt Romney, has the best vision, strength and ability to govern and pull this country out of its economic doldrums and generate enthusiasm and a positive attitude about this country’s opportunities.
Romney won the first debate by a wide margin and he has been able to maintain and possibly strengthen his position through the subsequent debates.
In all the debates, Romney represented himself as a creditable candidate, able to move into the White House, knowledgeable and up-to-date about both domestic and foreign affairs. The debates have provided him an opportunity to present himself in an unfiltered manner as a decent, compassionate and caring individual, not an out-of-date warmonger who has no empathy or appreciation for the importance and role of women in our society.
Following Monday’s debate, a senior GOP spokesperson described the events as “90 minutes of gold” for his party and Romney because the debates provided the opportunity for millions of voters to see what Romney is all about, not what the Obama ads have portrayed.
Debates two and three were much closer than the first. However, the momentum created in the first debate carried over into the subsequent encounters to give Romney a positive position going into the last two weeks of the grueling, rough, tremendously costly and often ugly campaign.
Obama enjoyed the advantage of three years as president, and the prestige and public exposure that accompanies this position. However, he was unable to take advantage of this and seldom gave viewers the confidence he is the clear-cut best possible individual to hold the reins of this country for another four years,
His record during the past three years has been bad, and try as they may, Democratic strategists have been unable to tie all of Obama’s failures to his predecessor, George W. Bush. They tried, but they didn’t gain any traction.
Republicans probably are disappointed their candidate did not come out Monday evening with a strong attack against Obama for the manner in which the president and his aides misled the public about what actually happened in the deadly attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
It appears that rather than take an aggressive stance during the third debate, Romney was determined to take the safe road, not be goaded into making serious mistakes, giving Obama an opportunity to score a decisive win. Romney played not to lose, instead of playing to win.
As it turned out, Obama failed to derail the Romney surge following the first debate and he was unable to present a powerful winning performance that would convince the public he deserved four more years. Totally justified or not, he has failed to measure up on many of his 2008 campaign promises, and this country has slipped into an even deeper hole of debt. Unemployment remains high and millions of Americans depend on the government for aid. There is an embarrassing lack of openness and commitment to work with Republicans on legislation and, in the last several weeks, the sad story of how Obama misled the public about the deadly attacks on the U.S. consulate.
The public has every reason to wonder, if their president finds it convenient to mislead, maybe even lie, about a matter so serious and open as the Benghazi affair, has he been honest with the public on many other matters?
Also, there is the lingering question of whether the president may try to come up with a major last-minute surprise or effort to change voters’ minds just before they go to the polls.
No matter how the debates colored the campaign, it’s not over until the last vote is cast on Nov. 6. It would be a mistake for Republicans to underestimate the lengths to which the president might go to pull off a last-minute, last-second victory.
Aside from a manufactured last-minute “hail Mary” effort by Obama, Romney has presented himself as a candidate very able and prepared to lead this country for the next four years.
Comments
Gandalf 7 months ago
This teapub hack is right about one thing. President Obama's "failures" can also be blamed on the party of no, that has given congress a 12% approval rate.
snap_pop_no_crackle 7 months ago
Don't the Democrats still have a majority in the Senate?
jafs 7 months ago
Do you understand what filibusters are, and how they're used, in our government?
Yeoman2 7 months ago
Now, now, you are going to be targeted for abuse by mentioning Romney's heros in this forum!
Kansas ls a ;lost cause, this state with it's rubes and hick hayseeds out west will fall unflinchingly for the facist line, such as the writer of this putrid editorial.
We can only hope that some bit of sanity will pervade other states where a mojority of the population will recognize the stench of facism and repression as demonstrated by Kobach, the national trumpet section for repression of non-acceptable voters.
Fortunately another republican terrorist senator has stepped on his appendage again in his crusade to get into our health care and beedrooms on the abortion issue. If more of these morons would speak out about their real agenda, we would not have to worry about jerks like romney, Ryan and Akin. But time will tell whether we remain a free people or a repressed nation.
jafs 7 months ago
Warrantless would refer properly to a government search.
The word you're looking for is "unwarranted".
beatrice 7 months ago
I also wish enough people will say no to Mitt Romney.
lunacydetector 7 months ago
when Romney wins, will the democrats be a party of "peace" ?
sunflower-voter 7 months ago
When President Obama wins, will the Republicans split into traditional Republicans and radical Tea Party? I hope so.
beatrice 7 months ago
Or will their heads just simply implode?
Keith 7 months ago
"In all the debates, Romney represented himself as a creditable candidate, able to move into the White House, knowledgeable and up-to-date about both domestic and foreign affairs."
When your newspaper folds, you can always find work as a comedy writer.
repaste 7 months ago
A good portion of that surge is manufactured, we heard the same in '08. "Buy this, everyone else is!" One of Karl Rove's ideas.
kernal 7 months ago
Let us not forget that the writer of this editorial is a member of a family that is part of the 1%.
Bill Hoyt 7 months ago
.
beatrice 7 months ago
"Who is the writer?"
Good point. Apparently, he is so ashamed of his pandering that he refuses to put his name to the editorial.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 months ago
The 0.1% is probably more accurate.
Satirical 7 months ago
kernal...
You are also likely part of the 1%, when you look at it from a global scale.
booyalab 7 months ago
Yeah, let's not forget to hate people just because they are different from us. Sounds great.
jafs 7 months ago
I saw nothing about hate in that post.
Simply a reminder of who wrote the editorial, and why they might support a Romney/Ryan administration.
Satirical 7 months ago
jafs...
So, if there is a pro-Obama piece, and someone claimed as/he must be a free-loader on foods stamps, you wouldn't have a problem with that either? A comment like that wouldn't be a way to divide people?
jafs 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Not a question of whether or not I have a problem with it.
I'm just pointing out the difference between the comment and the interpretation.
Also, I believe that it is a factual comment about the Simons' wealth, not a "claim".
It makes a lot of sense that somebody in a group that will benefit from a Romney presidency would support him, don't you think? And, it's clear from the few policy specifics that Romney has released that his presidency would in fact benefit those at the top.
Also, if you look at the editorial, you should notice that while he says Romney won the first debate (which most agree on), he fails to say that Obama won the next two (which most agree on as well), a clear example of his bias.
kernal 6 months, 4 weeks ago
hooybooy, there was no hate in my statement. My hate is reserved for the likes of Hitler, Idi Amin and others of their ilk. To indicate that Dolph is deserving of hate is just ridiculous.
Get a grip, man!
booyalab 6 months, 4 weeks ago
I would have said "heartily dislike" but I prefer brevity.
tuschkahouma 7 months ago
I early voted for Obama......some of you can vote for the person who is such an acting chameleon that he reminds you of the forgetful gipper....it really show how smart (laugh) you are.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 months ago
What a surprise-- Dolph endorses a Republican. Who could have ever guessed it.
repaste 7 months ago
Go back and scan a few LJW stories from about Oct 13 on. We have forgotten where we were.
booyalab 7 months ago
It's not worth getting riled up over when Democrats do it.
Getaroom 7 months ago
Romney trumps all other contracts known to humankind. His are with Corrupt Corporate America, "the pledged" of Congress, and the Oligarcs that he must fulfill if elected. And that he doesn't know his Middle East Geography worth a damn, or the Navy's strengths, or.............................................................! Obama 2012.
markoo 7 months ago
In other news, Dolph Simons, the owner of LJWorld has revealed himself to not only be part of the 1% and thus has no flippin clue how to relate to the remaining 99%, but is also a registered Republican.
Oh yeah, and I think he also endorses Romney, but I'm really not quite sure about that.
You're a hack, Dolph, and a clown. You sold off the cable company to pay for your flailing paper. I guess you must figure you've got nothing else to lose at this point. But watching you flail tirelessly over the past 2 months against Obama has become a sad and very low point in your paper. You've demonstrated nothing but a last gasp of desperation since you know the likelihood of Obama winning a second term becomes more and more real to you. 538 has over a 2-1 Obama advantage over Romney, and he has maintained that (or very close to that) nearly the entire time. I get the fact that you're afraid of the Other leading us to another 4 years. Nearly all economic forecasts have us making 12 milllion new jobs at our current pace (funny how Romney makes this HIS policy), and the last thing you 1%ers want is to give Obama credit for that.
You can just wub your widdle tears away with your $100 dollar bills.
markoo 7 months ago
".there are really people who think this way walking our streets?"
There are indeed. It's called the Reality-Based Community. It's where the rest of our nation walks that isn't in the 20% Right Wing nut base with Limbaugh and Coulter. I know you don't know where that is, but it's at least worth mentioning.
"no results by obama for 4 years"
A new healthcare plan
Getting us out of the biggest recession since the Great Depression, creating a steady job growth from the mess your previous idiot Administration left us in (and the majority of American still rightfully blame our economic mess on, BTW). Private sector growth has gained some 4.5 million since January 2010 once we started successfully climbing out of the mess he inherited by Bush.
Ending the Iraq War that your previous idiot Administration deliberately started on false pretenses, manipulated intelligence, and had abosolutely nothing to do with the man who attacked us on 9/11
Killing the man who attacked us on our soil on 9/11 while your last idiot President willfully ignored him.
Will end the Afghanistan war in a little over a year that your last idiot Administration got us into without a viable plan.
Saved Detroit and helped turn around the U.S. auto industry while your idiot nominee would have let it die and killed all those jobs (something he’s very adept at doing).
Repealed the asinine “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” rule
Expanded Pell Grant funding, while your idiot candidate would destroy it
Signed a GI bill offering $78 billion in tuition assistance over the next decade for veterans, as well as provided numerous tax credits for businesses to encourage hiring of veterans. He also had a new jobs bill that would have helped hire more veterans, but that strangely got shot down by those military-loving GOP Congress members. Funny that.
Signed Lilly-Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 giving women the ability to sue for discrimination if they are paid less than a man for the same work
Improved the Food Safety Program
Achieved the new START treaty
Expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection
Expanded Health Care coverage for children under the new CHIP program
Hired more border patrols and had more deportations than his previous idiot predecessor, while implementing the DREAM Act via Executive order
Shrunk the government better than his Republican predecessors. Yes, this is a true fact: http://aneconomicsense.com/2012/05/25/federal-government-expenditures-under-obama-close-to-flat-in-contrast-to-the-big-increases-of-his-republican-predecessors/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/business/economy/government-is-getting-smaller-in-the-us-off-the-charts.html?_r=2&;
Banned torture
Strengthened Environmental protection
Has allowed greater oil production than his previous idiot predecessor
Oh, just to name a few……
The rest of your post is your typical shill blather. No need to respond at all to your asinine unsupported assertions.
markoo 7 months ago
I really love cost analysis by Wingers. The net effect seems to be missed at all times. According to the CBO, you know, that NONPartisan group, the ACA will actually LOWER the deficit, some $100 billion:
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf
And actually repealing it will add substantially to the deficit and costs of health care:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
But just ignore what nonpartisan groups say. It's much better to just hear what Limbaugh says in your echo chamber.....
markoo 7 months ago
"which Obama banned, helped the US locate and kill Osama Bin Laden"
Evidence, please.
markoo 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Keep reading your own source, rockchalk:
"But I'm also saying that the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question."
Why do Moonbats like you leave this out? And also read very carefully too - did Panetta specifically state that the waterboarding of these detainees (i.e. KSM) give them intelligence that led to OBL?
Or did he say that the info. that came from the detainees that led to OBL who, at some point in time, were tortured/waterboarded?
You have to be careful with politicians and intelligence folks like Panetta. They know how to parse their words very carefully. We spent 8 years under the Bush Administration who were masters at parsing words, i.e. with intelligence.
How about a first hand witness to the waterboarding?:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/did_waterboarding_lead_to_bin.html
In fact, if anything, the torturing slowed us down and Obama's Administration had to pick it back up in the hunt for OBL:
"Four leading former interrogators and intelligence officials argue today that, "The use of waterboarding and other so-called 'enhanced' interrogation techniques almost certainly prolonged the hunt for Bin Laden and complicated the jobs of professional U.S. interrogators who were trying to develop useful information." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-danzig/torture-did-not-lead-the-_b_857708.html
More info here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html?_r=0
and here:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/05/bin-laden-and-torture.html#ixzz1LHdiKWOG
It's all spin:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html
Of course you fell for it. Sorry, you can't beat your chest and claim Bush helped on this one. It's all during the Obama Administration. Keep in mind, Bush "didn't really think much" about capturing OBL, and he took his eyes off him in Tora Bora to attack a hapless country that had nothing to do with attacking us on 9/11.
This is epic fail on Bush's end. And you can't change that no matter how hard you try.
markoo 7 months ago
Tasmanian devil, is that you?
markoo 7 months ago
"Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't it a Democrat-controlled Senate that authorized the use of force against Iraq? Would you say that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, et. al., are also idiots?"
Yes I would, and they have had quite a bit to say about their mistakes AFTER they examined all the evidence, including the Stovepipe used by Cheney's office.
BTW, guess who didn't vote for the Iraq War?
"Hillary Clinton are both on record saying the intelligence regarding Iraq was consistent from the Clinton admin to Bush 43. The Clinton admin left office in January 2001 saying that Saddam had WMD and, thus, was "a clear and present danger at all times." Given this, do you believe the Clinton admin came up with the false pretense that Saddam had WMD?"
Pretty sure it wasn't Clinton who decided to take our troops out or Tora Bora away from the hunt for ABL and move on that given intelligence at that time to attack Iraq. In fact, Operation Desert Fox was estimated to have taken care of much of that WMD threat in 1998. You do remember that, don't you? He also pushed for more inspections.
Pretty sure it wasn't Clinton who falsely tied Saddam to attacking us on 9/11.
Pretty sure it wasn't Clinton who falsely tied al Qaeda to Iraq.
Funny, when Bush got to Iraq and had inspectors there, that just wasn't enough for him. Why was that?
You remember Curveball?
"You say that Obama ended the war in Iraq. Isn't it true that the Obama admin sought to keep our troops in Iraq, but SOFA negotiations broke down?"
Pretty sure he left then, did he not?
"You're claim that Obama has shrunk the government has been debunked by numerous fact checkers. "
What did those articles I posted above state that was false? Please be specific with your examples.
markoo 7 months ago
"Fact checkers have also debunked the claim that Romney would have let Detroit die."
Romney in November 2011:
"My view with regards to the bailout was that whether it was by President Bush or by President Obama, it was the wrong way to go. I said from the very beginning they should go through a managed bankruptcy process, a private bankruptcy process.
We have capital markets and bankruptcy, it works in the U.S. The idea of billions of dollars being wasted initially then finally they adopted the managed bankruptcy, I was among others that said we ought to do that.
My plan, we would have had a private sector bailout with the private sector restructuring and bankruptcy with the private sector guiding the direction as opposed to what we had with government playing its heavy hand." http://www.cnbc.com/id/45232734/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Also from Romney:
""would have been best had the auto companies gone through the bankruptcy process without having taken $17 billion from government." http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/06/obama-drawing-sharp-line-apart-from-gop-on-auto-industry-bailouts/1#.UIahbMXA9yI
What other conclusion could be drawn other than Romney would have forced them into bankruptcy and in all likelihood killed so many jobs in the process?
"Do you ever check out these bogus claims for yourself?"
Do you ever read anything other than Moonbat sources?
markoo 6 months, 4 weeks ago
More on whether the Democrats had the same intelligence that the Bush Administration had before invading Iraq:
"[S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department’s dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate.” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=
This is also confirmed by our own Senator Roberts: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/13.html#a5846
The "White Paper" or declassified NIE as it was called that was distributed to Congress as a summary of intelligence gathered by Cheney's group removed nearly all caveats and dissenting views from other intelligence agencies including the INR and DOE entirely. From the Senate Select Committee of Intelligence Report that Senator Roberts headed at that time:
"Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community's elimination of the caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments. ... Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions in the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included in the unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded completely. In both cases in which there were dissenting opinions, the dissenting agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject matter experts on the issues in question. Excluding the names of the agencies provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the Intelligence Community regarding these issues. ... Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002 White Paper on Iraq's potential to deliver biological agents conveyed a level of threat to the United States homeland inconsistent with the classified National Intelligence Estimate." http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter10-c.htm
It's fun going down memory lane about that wonderful Bush Administration, ain't it?
markoo 7 months ago
The problem with the media right now is they are desperate as hell (like Dolph) to pull this into a "tight" race. It gives them ratings and $ to do so. The same thing occurred in 2004 when Kerry was "tightening" the race, even though it was pretty obvious to me the incumbent was going to win again, i.e. during a time of war. It's fun and cute, but the obvious problem is again the math of the swing states:
"But if the national polls are looking even, that doesn’t mean that the election is an even-money contest. Although this race is very close, the road to 270 electoral votes is considerably more difficult for Romney than it is for Obama. The president starts off with undisputed leads in 16 states and the District of Columbia with 237 electoral votes, 33 short of the 270 needed to win. Romney begins with equally clear leads in 23 states with 191 electoral votes, 79 short of a victory. Nine states with 110 electoral votes are in the admittedly broad Toss-Up column (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Obama needs to win 30 percent of those Toss-Up electoral votes; Romney needs 72 percent of those votes."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/off-to-the-races/will-third-debate-change-the-electoral-math--20121023
The uphill climb is much higher for Romney. Sorry, statistically speaking the odds are not in his favor. He knows this. Dolph in all likelihood knows this. And now you do as well.
As for your bet, I must admit it is pretty strange, though I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. So Romney wins, I lose, and I can't post on here? Gosh, are you really that afraid of any countering opinions to yours? You really do sound like Limbaugh. Strange.
The problem is, if I win (and statistically it looks like I will), I actually still want your voice heard here despite my disagreements with nearly every opinion you post. That's what makes our country so great, these differing opinions and our ability to express them. There are, however, other countries and religions that do not like differing opinions and attempt to squash them at all costs. The Taliban really comes to mind. Perhaps you have more in common with them than you realize?
jhawkinsf 7 months ago
I liked every part of you post, from the election analysis to your comments about hearing differing opinions.
markoo 7 months ago
TY.
markoo 7 months ago
"I'll take that as a tacit admission that you do not have much confidence in 538's analysis."
I made no such admission. Me having confidence in Nate Silver's analysis does not equate to being involved in your silly bet. Like my post above, Nate uses a much greater analysis of ALL polls (unlike some websites like the Right Wing's favorite Real Clear Politics). I'm more than happy to wait and see if 538 is proven correct in 13 days, and I'm also more than happy to freely admit if I am wrong with having so much confidence in Nate at that time if the end results are opposite to his predictions.
But again, I stand by what I said regarding your bet - unlike you, I would still want your voice here if Obama wins, even when I disagree on nearly everything you post. That's the apparent difference between you and me - you have little desire to hear others that oppose your views, and I actually welcome it for a good debate and discussion. Again, your views appear much closer to the Taliban in this regard.
markoo 7 months ago
"Your admission was not explicit, but it was certainly tacit."
Your tea leaf reading is hilarious. I repeat: Me having confidence in Nate Silver's analysis does not equate to being involved in your silly bet.
"Sure, we all saw your initial response to this editorial. You really offer a cogent argument in response."
What does my response have anything to do with this statement? Am I not allowed to offer my personal opinion on what I believe is a Right Wing hack who owns this paper, coupled with some evidence that supports my assertion on Obama being currently ahead?
Discussion and debating does not always have "cogent" arguments at all stops. Your opinions along with Sage's and RockChalks are terrific examples. Am I not allowed to do the same?
Then again, since you apparently don't want me to discuss any ideas or points against your own, I can see why this may be a problem for you.....
somedude20 7 months ago
Lawrence Journal Faux......
by somedude20
Yeoman2 7 months ago
Hmmmm....The news of the day is that the housing market is recovering very well and indicating that the economic recovery is going well. Soo, how are the facists going to discredit this issue? What will rush limbaugh say, huhhhhhh?????
markoo 7 months ago
The DOW was at 7949 when Obama took office. It's now currently 13,113 today last I checked. That's a 7,949 point gain.
Only the ignoramus look at snapshots of the DOW like you just did and draw conclusions on that.
Your doom of "double-dip" neglects the fact that job growth is ineviteable no matter who is in office:
"But Moody’s Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs. In other words, this is a fairly safe bet by Romney, even if he has a somewhat fuzzy plan for action. We have often noted that presidents are often at the mercy — or are the beneficiary — of broad economic trends, and Romney’s pledge appears to be an effort to take advantage of that."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/fact-check-romneys-12-million-jobs/
But just overt your eyes to that darn Reality-Based Community light ahead......
markoo 7 months ago
No, just someone who made a mistake, which I did.
Ignoramus twits don't admit to that.
foodboy 7 months ago
Here is Mitt Romney's impressive record. Makes you really want to trust the guy. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/false/
snap_pop_no_crackle 7 months ago
When you've lost Letterman... http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/24/letterman-upset-and-discouraged-obama-lied-about-romney-wanting-detro
cait48 7 months ago
So is anybody waiting for Trump's October surprise, "really REALLY BIG NEWS" about Obama with bated breath? How much you want to bet it's the news that his father wasn't just black but black black blackity black? No matter. I can see the internet meme's coming from a mile away.
Agnostick 7 months ago
bustah...
Copy/pasting without attribution is called plagiarism.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-dept-emails-from-day-libya-attack-show-al-qaeda-tied-group-on-radar/
Agnostick 7 months ago
If the Fox News story is true, then I would agree that President Obama and his administration have a lot of explaining to do.
If the story is true.
Was there some reason you chose to delete the link that the Fox News web site automatically tags on at the end of every copy/paste? For example:
"The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/state-dept-emails-from-day-libya-attack-show-al-qaeda-tied-group-on-radar/#ixzz2AElCd7rm
See that part after "Read more"...?? Don't take my word for it--try it yourself. Any other user reading this can try it themselves, as well. If they do, then they will know that I am right: that you, "bustah," are a plagiarist. ;)
Agnostick 7 months ago
rockchalkzombie's plagiarism:
"The emails were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence."
Original copyrighted work stolen from Fox News:
"The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence."
Looks like the bustah troll willfully omitted four words to mask his plagiarism. Are trolls that incapable of original thought and writing, that they have to plagiarize the work of others?
Getaroom 6 months, 4 weeks ago
and you derived all this from some Facebook postings, which are always true? NOT
cait48 6 months, 4 weeks ago
I hate to throw cold water on your rabid attack over those e-mails, RC1977, but Condoleeza Rice would like a word with you. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/25/1089691/condi-rice-pours-cold-water-libya/
somedude20 7 months ago
why don't you resurrect some proof of the "god' you state is real
beatrice 6 months, 4 weeks ago
And if Romney fails, will that prove that there is no god?
cait48 7 months ago
You know, it's a sign of a psychological failing to live in a fantasy world.
The rest of "Amurrica" isn't Kansas.
Katara 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Lots of people don't like Greek yogurt. Big deal.
markoo 7 months ago
Here's some of that dose of reality for you:
"But if the national polls are looking even, that doesn’t mean that the election is an even-money contest. Although this race is very close, the road to 270 electoral votes is considerably more difficult for Romney than it is for Obama. The president starts off with undisputed leads in 16 states and the District of Columbia with 237 electoral votes, 33 short of the 270 needed to win. Romney begins with equally clear leads in 23 states with 191 electoral votes, 79 short of a victory. Nine states with 110 electoral votes are in the admittedly broad Toss-Up column (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Obama needs to win 30 percent of those Toss-Up electoral votes; Romney needs 72 percent of those votes."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/off-to-the-races/will-third-debate-change-the-electoral-math--20121023
Sorry, the odds are still not in your favor. Pity.
WristTwister 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Interesting. It may be that the electoral analysis depends on the source.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
markoo 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Sorry, but considering RCP is a bastion of right wing news, I have a difficult time trusting their polls a bit. For example, they didn't post the Survey USA poll in Ohio showing Obama +3 until they had Rasmussen posting a tie. Rasmussen was posted on time, Survey USA was posted a day late.
Some other examples of omission:
Florida: RCP failed to post Mellman in Florida showing a tie, and would have brought the numbers of Romney slightly ahead down: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/MellmanFlorida1012.pdf
Virginia: RCP conveniently left out Mellman showing Obam +1, as well as PPP showing Obama +2: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/mellmanvirginia.PDF http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/VirginiaPollingMemo.pdf
Iowa: PPP had two polls, one showing Obama +1, the other showing Romney +1. Guess which one RCP posted?: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/IowaPollingMemo.pdf
North Carolina: Grove listed Obama +3. Yet another poll conveniently left out of RCP.
This is why I don't trust them, and why I feel Nate Silver has a more comprehensive and more accurate analysis based on the polling data.
BigAl 7 months ago
Since Gov Romney was a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam war, why is he now qualified to become Commander in Chief?
BigAl 7 months ago
Nope. Clinton was against the war for political reasons. Romney was against the war because of his Mormon faith and his deep personal beliefs. Big difference. Now, since Romney himself won't have to go to a war anywhere, he can somehow put his "deep beliefs" and his religion aside. How convenient.
BigAl 7 months ago
By the way Sage, you got Clinton in there but you somehow forgot to blame Hollywood and the press. You are slipping.
Bushloather1 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Didn't he have a Rhodes Scholarship too?
markoo 7 months ago
Or Mr. 5 deferrments Cheney?
Yeah, what a chest-thumber that man was.....
Agnostick 7 months ago
I wonder how many times Clinton has falsely claimed military service online... hiding behind anonymity...??
Satirical 7 months ago
BigAl...
In this election are all liberals told to make-up lies about Romney, rather than give a reason to vote for Pres. Obama? If so, you are doing a great job.
Romney was not a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam War. The LDS (Mormons) are not opposed to serving in war. Missionaries, however did receive deferments.
cait48 7 months ago
Ann Romney equated Mitt's missionary work in France to serving in Vietnam. Like going door to door in Paris was somehow equivalent to going in country in the Mekong Delta. One of the biggest defector factions in this election have been white middle aged men who followed McCain. Gee, I wonder why?
Satirical 7 months ago
cait48...
Congratulations on being a typical liberal LJWorld poster and obfuscating to make Romney appear undesirable.
Ann Romney never said they were exactly the same. Ann Romney equated missionary work to serving one's country. Are you suggesting that sacrificing over two years of one's life in order to serve a greater cause is a bad thing? You are right, what sort of a Monster would do such a thing?
cait48 7 months ago
"Are you suggesting that sacrificing over two years of one's life in order to serve a greater cause is a bad thing? "
As I am not a Mormon, Mitt's proselytization in a foreign country means about as much to me as what you had for dinner. It CERTAINLY doesn't mean as much to me as what the men of my generation went through at the time and the wounds, both mental and physical, that they suffered and still carry to this day.
Satirical 7 months ago
cait48...
Are you now claiming that Ann Romney said Mitt Romney's missionary service should mean as much to cait48 as would military service in Vietnam? That is odd. I didnt' know she said that. I thought Ann was talking about the similarity of personal sacrifice and serving something greater than oneself. Apparently she was talking about what it means to you, cait48.
Do you hear other voices?
Satirical 7 months ago
Gandalf...
Liberals seem to be great at making up facts, but horrible about giving reasons to support Pres Obama.
Romney received deferment but was eligible for the draft after 1970. Is anyone who doesn't enlist in the military during a time a war a coward? If so, wouldn't Obama also qualify?
cait48 7 months ago
Obama was all of 11 years old when the compulsory draft was a abolished. He still registered with Selective Service, along with a gazillion other young men. Don't compare apples to oranges.
Satirical 7 months ago
cait48...
So, just to be clear - you don't define a "coward" as someone who doesn't serve in the military during a time of war (apples); you only define a "coward" as someone who was eligible for the draft after 1970, and receieved temporary deferments to get an education and serve his church and fellow man on a mission (oranges)?
I have to admit, that is an odd distinction you are drawing (although given the source...)
beatrice 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Reasons to support President Obama: He kept the nation from falling into another depression, which is exactly where we were headed. He ended the war in Iraq and has a timeline to get us out of Afghanistan. He killed Osama bin Laden and helped in the overthrow of Gadhafi. We have seen 20+ months of continuous job growth during his watch. We have seen double the number of illegal immigrants deported, with a concentration being on those who commit crimes other than just being here. He oversaw a plan to make sure nearly all Americans have access to affordable health care through health insurance coverage. He helped save the American auto industry...
Lots of reasons to support him.
Bushloather1 6 months, 4 weeks ago
With a wife and kids? No that elgible. Besides it was beginning to wind down from here.
jayhawklawrence 7 months ago
Do you ever wonder why in every Presidential election we always spend too much time talking about the Mideast?
It happened again and this time it was related to the Republican strategy to create a "false controversy" in Libya in order to mislead voters.
Here is a little reminder of the history of the Iraq war and how it might have started with Dick Cheney. Go to the website link and study the history of Cheney and Halliburton.
1997 "Cheney contributes to the creation of an influential right-wing policy group called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The group advocates for the removal of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as early as January 1998, and is later revealed to be the intellectual center of the drive to war in Iraq."
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html
Romney wants to send arms to rebels in Syria and jump in with both feet even though he has little sensitivity to complexities in the region. He is relying mostly on advisors from the Bush-Cheney administration.
There are many reports available on the close association between Romney and Cheney and it is certain that Cheney will have influence in the Romney administration. Romney's comment about Syria being Iraq's path to the sea underscores his ignorance and lack of interest in foreign affairs. He is planning to delegate this to former Bush-Cheney officials.
There are many plans underway by the right wing which they will implement after their election which will be disturbing to most Americans. That is why their strategy has been to avoid any details and to focus on attacking Obama and blaming him for the economy which was created by the failed policies of the previous administration.
cait48 7 months ago
Even sadder that Halliburton was the one that sold Iran their nuclear centrifuges. Anything for a quick buck, huh?
jhawkinsf 7 months ago
I'm still putting my money on Obama. Two months ago, I thought it would be a landslide, something like 54%-46%. Now I'm guessing at 52%-48%.
jonas_opines 7 months ago
That's a poor bet, as even if you lose you'll just get a different name and be right back on here. As, likely, would anyone else who would offer or take that bet.
. . . and no, I'm not going to take your bet, either. I'm not seeing any certainty to predict a win for either, past empty bravado, and I see too little difference between the two candidates to care that much, past the personal preference of a gridlocked government.
markoo 6 months, 4 weeks ago
As stated previously, your wager is silly since I'd prefer to hear your voice here even if you lose. And it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are demonstrating cowardice by repeating the same silly bet and making an obnoxious attempt to damper anyone's voice (like myself) who disagrees with your own.
But I will take a more friendly wager with you if you prefer, something that does not entail forcing someone to leave the site. Besides, as Jonas Opines stated, one could easily welsh on the bet and take a different name. One has to wonder if this is something you've done in the past. Me personally, I've been here with the same name since 1998, but I digress.
Again, the odds are in my favor, not just at 538 (Obama's chances just increased, BTW): http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
But also at Electionprojection.com: http://www.electionprojection.com/2012elections/president12.php
At Intrade: http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84326
And the betters worldwide: http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner
Actually, how about this - how about we consider putting a little money on our favorite horse at that last website? You choose which one you'd like to use, and I'll do the same. Shall we say, $1000 U.S. dollars? I think if you bet, they should give you a confirmation #. If you agree to this, PM me the confirmation # and I'll do the same to you.
If there's other parameters you'd like to set, let me know. I'd just prefer to maybe put my $ on the line against yours rather than kill our freedom to discussion and debate. That darn 1st Amendment thingy is just kinda nice for us silly libruls. Conservatives like yourself may not appreciate it as much, but I hope one day you will understand.
jayhawklawrence 7 months ago
Do you want to support a new gilded age for the global and super rich who do not care where their company acquires its labor or do you want to learn more about what is at stake for middle class americans if we simply let the wealthiest Americans determine domestic and international policy?
Look what is happening in Kansas. Your boss pays no taxes. You pay the taxes.
Your kids are going to schools that are struggling for teachers and funding and you cannot afford to send them to the expensive private schools. When the teachers ask for help they get blamed for being selfish, stupid and wasteful.
If we actually focused on the negative effects of right wing policies, we could talk for days and days and days. Instead, we get false controversies such as whether an isolated event in the Mideast was caused by a demonstration, terrorists, criminals, etc. Meanwhile, just as many people were killed in a shopping mall in Wisconsin just this week.
Why didn't we spend 2 weeks debating whether that was Obama's fault?
Yeoman2 7 months ago
I think Obama will win easily. NOT in bleeding flyover Kansas of course, but you must look at reality, this state has an idiot for a governer, a slacker for a secretary of state and two senators who would be judged totrally imcompetant in anyone's workforce (except the Koch company)
Polls, [polls, polls are like posterior openings, everyone has one. Polls for Romney, polls for Obama, and polls for that hair dude in Texas, whatzisname......Oh! Perry!!!
When was the last time YOU were even asked for a poll question? Do you know anhyone who has been asked?? Probably not.
These "polls" are dreamed up to give the frenetic and blathering 24 hour news outlets something to chew on and expectorate an an hourly basis. Not much more.
As one wag once said, "There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics" I would add polls to that statement.
Satirical 7 months ago
Yeoman2...
I like it how when a liberal on LJWorld criticizes the Governor they tend to use derogatory phrases, like "idiot;" but when a conservative criticizes the POTUS, liberals will cry "racism," or "person X isn't being respectful to the office of the Presidency", or demand "civility."
Glad to see liberals keeping hypocrisy alive and well.
beatrice 7 months ago
Sati, you appear to be the one bringing up racism.
However, when racist comments are leveled against the President, do you really believe they should be ignored? Is that what you are arguing for, or are you claiming that nobody has ever made "racially tinged" comments about Obama?
I will agree that civility toward the office of elected officials is in short supply coming from both sides. Remember, it isn't all people of any group who are to blame. After all, I don't see you too frequently criticizing the birther arguments by SaegonPage, but I wouldn't argue you agree with him just because you never criticize he representation of conservative views.
Satirical 7 months ago
beatrice...
Yes, I did bring up racism claims...what is your point?
When did I say racist comments should be ignored? When did I say nobody has ever made "racially tinged" comments about Obama? What do your questions have to do with my claim of hypocrisy by many liberals?
"I will agree that civility toward the office of elected officials is in short supply coming from both sides." - beatrice
BINGO. You can't demand civility from one side, but then fail to do so yourself. Before 2008 I thought liberals didn't believe in civility to elected offices (see comments towards Bush), but then I realized many liberals only believe in civility when doesn't apply to them.
"I wouldn't argue you agree with him just because you never criticize he representation of conservative views." - beatrice
When did I say one must condemn every uncivil attack from every source, or be seen a supporting said uncivil attack? I said Yeoman2, and many liberals who demand civility when referring to Pres Obama, fail to do the same for the Kansas Governor. Hypocrisy.
beatrice 6 months, 4 weeks ago
I point out that you are the one to mention racism because it isn't coming from someone else based on generic or pointed criticism of Obama. Sometimes the criticism of Obama does cross a line -- Alex recently said he removed someone's comment for being "racially tinged" -- and in those cases it should be called for what it is. However, by calling those comments for being racist does not mean ALL comments against Obama are thus racist. It really needs to be a case by case issue. I find it odd to accuse others of calling conservatives racist for criticizing Obama when the context of any of those situations are not at hand.
I agree that many were completely foolish about the way they attacked Bush, which I stated frequently when he was in office. I criticized his policies, but I still called him President Bush, or W. because that is what he called himself. As you point out, conservatives hated the things said about Bush, but when they got the chance many turned around and did the exact same toward Obama. That is just a case of behaving like the thing they claim to hate. The hypocrisy is on both sides on this issue, no doubt.
On the last part, it was a poorly worded sentence on my part. I was attempting to say that I recognize that if you personally don't criticize ugly statements made by conservatives, that I still know you don't also share those statements. I don't always criticize stupid statements by liberals, but that doesn't mean I share their views. It was my way of saying that you and I have had enough exchanges for me to know that you are a conservative, but not a hater, as it were. Again, poorly worded on my part. Hope this makes a little better sense of where I was headed with that.
So let me say it as Mitt Romney stated it in the last debate -- "I agree." : )
Armstrong 7 months ago
You need to get out of Larry more often. Barry is in deep doo doo - again
cait48 7 months ago
And you need to get out of Kansas more often. It's narrowing your world view.
Armstrong 7 months ago
Barry is having a busy week. Domestically he is now in hot water with Ohio voters for screwing non-union workers out of pensions. Secondly i believe there was that foriegn debacle that just came to light today ? The bowl is starting to swirl Barry. Nov 7
rockchalker52 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Obama's gonna win.
cait48 7 months ago
Trumps big "announcement"? He's offering 5 million for Obama's college records and passport applications. Heck, Obama only makes 400k/year as prez. 5 million is more than what he would make for 8 years in the office. If I were him, I'd figure out a way to get those records to Trump through a third party, claim the reward and laugh all the way to the bank. What's he going to find? That once upon a time our president made a C in Trigonometry? HAHAHA!
Agnostick 7 months ago
$5 million? That's a cheapskate Republican/conservative for you.
I'll bet Larry Flynt would offer at least $10 million for something like that, just for the sake of beating The Donald at his own game...! ;)
cait48 7 months ago
Did Mitt Romney release his?
Armstrong 7 months ago
Only if Barry does
beatrice 7 months ago
"Islama"?
Why do so many conservatives resort to childish name calling?
beatrice 7 months ago
Mine was a figure of speech -- conservatives' heads imploding is a way of saying they will be very, very upset. Calling President Obama a name like "Islama" is simply calling someone names and basing it on really ugly behavior from someone who is still claiming our President was not born in this country. If you feel that they are examples of the same behavior, I would strongly disagree.
Satirical 7 months ago
rochchalk1977...
While I usually don't waste my time correcting every statement on the LJWorld, I agree with beatrice. As you can tell from my comments I am a Romney supporter, but I believe the POTUS (whoever s/he is) deserves our respect.
Furthermore, the name calling undermines your position. When you engage in name calling, most people will think you are not a rational adult, will think only non-rational adults oppose the POTUS, and will not pay attention to your arguments. If you want to influence others, draw attention to your arguments, not to yourself.
dwendel 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Birthers are funny.
snap_pop_no_crackle 7 months ago
What's Neil MacDonald saying? "...How, then, did he arrive at the place from which he debated Monday night in the third and last of this election's televised debates? Resorting to rehearsed zingers and smallish attacks, as the rather awkward fellow who couldn't even capture the Republican nomination four years ago sat, taciturn, across the desk, politely deflecting him? How to explain the undertone of desperation (go back and listen closely, it's there) from a man who was, just a month ago, the personification of cool, brainy confidence?..." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/10/23/f-rfa-macdonald-moderate-mitt.html
jrlii 7 months ago
I guess it's understandable that the Lawrence Daily Journal World endorsed the Romney/Ryan ticket, having been a Republican paper since the days when Republicans stood for freedom and fairness, over a century before they morphed into the mean-spirited entities they now are.
Romney "won" the first debate only 'cause no one called him on his um. . . untruths. It's a wonder his pants didn't catch fire!
Romney's performance in the second debate was much worse, mostly 'cause Obama & the moderator both called Romney on his. . . untruths.
The last debate showed Romney as a candidate without a clue with respect to foriegn policy.
A five word sumary of my oppinion of Romney is simple and succinct: Flipper Flopper tells a whoper.
sunflower-voter 7 months ago
Good lord. Republicans kept saying their campaign was going to get ugly, but who would have believed this? You open your political tent to crazy, and you get crazytown on billboards and delivered to voters' mailboxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/politics/strident-anti-obama-messages-flood-key-states.html?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20121024&_r=0
Satirical 7 months ago
sunflower-voter...
Perhaps they should have tried something more subtle, like running a commercial blaming Pres. Obama for a woman dying of cancer. Pres Obama and his Super-Pacs have spend way more money attacking Romeny than highlighting the President's record. (I wonder why).
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/white-house-wont-denounce-anti-romney-ad/1#.UIhlqcXA9To
sunflower-voter 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Calling the President's mother a whore is okay with you?
cait48 7 months ago
I have an idea! How about if Obama offers to release his school records if Mitt Romney releases his tax records? Fair trade?
beatrice 6 months, 4 weeks ago
I don't recall any president or presidential candidate to be asked to show his school records, but all presidential candidates of the modern era have provided several years worth of tax returns until Mitt Romney.
WristTwister 6 months, 4 weeks ago
I'm willing to bet that Mitt would take that wager. I'm also willing to bet that Obama would decline.
beatrice 6 months, 4 weeks ago
If that were true, then Mitt would have released his returns a long time ago, just as EVERY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OF THE MODERN ERA HAS DONE PRIOR TO MITT ROMNEY.
In the eyes of many, including many undecided or independent voters, if Romney didn't have anything to hide he would have released his returns. Instead, he keeps them hidden, which may leave just enough suspicion about him among independent voters that Romney may lose the election over this single issue. Noboby but FoxNews conservatives who hate everything about Obama and would never vote for him no matter what care about seeing school transcripts. Can you recall what grade Bush Sr. got in Botany, or which semester McCain took Art History? Of course not, because the school transcripts of someone in their teens and early 20s means little about who the person is as an adult.
So keep bringing up school transcripts and tax returns. It doesn't help your cause.
Armstrong 6 months, 4 weeks ago
So let me guess bea, by Mitt making his private tax returns public that will be just what is needed for you to change your mind and vote for him. That's as far fetched as me voting for Barry because he made his college transcripts public. Keep dreaming
beatrice 6 months, 4 weeks ago
If Romney is so great, why isn't the state where he was governor supporting him?
kernal 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Ditto for the major newspaper in Salt Lake City, Utah.
snap_pop_no_crackle 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Good for another go-around.
by snap_pop_no_crackle
Armstrong 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Libs seem to keep provinig that in your posts
Agnostick 6 months, 4 weeks ago
tH3 sP@m B0+ L|v3z!! B3w@r3 +h3 |nF|n|+3 L00piNg m3$$@g3z!
snap_pop_no_crackle 6 months, 4 weeks ago
In other news: "THE CONSEQUENCES OF BENGHAZI POSTED BY BLACKFIVE • [OCTOBER 24, 2012] Without a doubt, there are more consequences than are listed here, and we certainly should understand why certain decisions were made to do nothing, to reduce security, and, for weeks, to blame the enchillada on radical youtube video... First of all, we lost four very good men during the attack. Men that are irreplacable. Second, we know now that the President, the VP and the SecDef knew what was happening within a relatively immediate timeframe. The way it should have worked was that the SecDef should have given the President options. Of course, one option is to do nothing. Apparently, even after knowing what was happening and having drone footage ~2 hours into the fight, the President decided on nothing. This is problematic if you work for State in the ME. You know now that the President won't help you in times of dire need. You will either stop taking any risks or you will decide to use more force than might be necessary. Either way, it's not good for our State people over there. The President made the decision to not use F18s (even in a flyover to shake the resolve of the terrorists). The President made the decision to go to Vegas to a campaign dinner. So what is worse than our State people now knowing that the President will do nothing if they are attacked? Al Qaeda knows that now, too." http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/10/the-conseqeunces-of-benghazi.html
cait48 6 months, 4 weeks ago
It's so fun to see a right wingnut frothing.
Armstrong 6 months, 4 weeks ago
It's due to the left constantly drooling
Agnostick 6 months, 4 weeks ago
Well, none of the usual trolls have posted it (including one who seems to have a fascination with skid marks)... so I will.
Here's a pretty interesting editorial from Peggy Noonan. I know her from MSNBC's "Morning Joe," and I've found her to be intelligent, likeable, well-spoken.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204530504578079232194509700.html#printMode
Commenting has been disabled for this item.