See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
It was a tie, perhaps small advantage Obama until the Libya question. Romney nailed him and Obama begged the moderator to go to the next question. That moved the overall win to Romney.
That woman at the UN must have missed the memo. You know how hard it is for people to communicate these days. Maybe she needed another cell phone card and temporarily lost service.
Luckily, the buck stops with Hilary. I'm rather proud of Hilary. I think she has been the only person in our federal government that has actually done her job.
With the Libya attack (Romney's, not the actual attack), Romney came across as desperate to score political points stemming from a tragedy. Is he really trying to convince the American people that the President is actually capable of keeping all people safe from terrorists attacks all around the world? Or, is he trying to say that all intelligence reports should be 100% accurate at all times?
Which ever it is, Romney is not winning people over to his cause. It is silly to think presidents can protect all Americans (9-11, for example) or that all intelligence will be accurate (WMDs, for instance).
Also, just on debate tactics, you don't ask someone your debating a direct question that needs an explaination when it is your time to speak. Romney just allowed Obama to talk during Romney's allotted time. Bad tactic.
Obama did refer to the tragedy as a terrorist attack, a fact that was pointed out to Romney in real time by Crowley. Romney lost big time on that issue as well as the overall debate.
She pointed out Obama was right on semantics, but Romney was correct with his point.
Crowley said on CNN after the debate that Romney was right about that.
I actually watched it. I sort of wanted them to have a fist fight when they started getting close to each other.
As for Libya, Obama did not call the attack terrorism the next day. All he did was say "we don't know what happened but terrorists don't scare us". That's a whole other thing from saying it was a terrorist attack. It was a week before the administration and Obama himself stopped blaming a stupid video (which a large portion of you seemed a little too anxious to censor) and admitted it was a terrorist attack.
I still wish they would have scrapped. It would have been hilarious.
yup Mitt would have bi#$#@ slapped the punk!
Liberty, you are wrong. Here's the next day quote from Obama:
"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."
Was there more than one message coming out immediately after the attack? Yes. I daresay this is not the first time from any administration that you care to look at that more than one message has come out immediately after an event occurred where it was not completely clear what happened or who caused it. And will the conclusions of the study about the Libyan attacks convince everybody? Heck, no! Look at all the wacko conspiracy theorists who have build careers out of what happened to JFK, or the World Trade Center, or the Pentagon attack, or pretty much any other major historical event.
The purpose here by Romney is to use the ambiguity of an unfolding event to plant the seeds of doubt about the credibility of the current administration and Obama specifically--period. The fact that those charges may be entirely dis-proven or spurious later is irrelevant--look at Climategate as a recent example of the kind of playbook that Romney is using as his primer.
Still no specifics on what tax deductions get cut and he's still hiding his tax returns. Signed an assault weapons ban now he's against it. Signed healthcare reform now he's against it. Was pro choice now he's pro life. Was against Reagan now he has a man crush on him. Campaigned on a $5 trillion tax cut, now it's not a tax cut. Can you really trust this guy? Does he really stand for anything or just say what's politically convenient at the time?
"Ugh! Really?" Not very original.
During the Clinton years there was a "Slick Willy" version of this button chasing game; of course one couldn't take it with them. With the advent of smart phones, this is just another way to keep the electronically dependent entertained (and focused on who to vote for?) as they wait in line in November while serious voters try to remain patient as they wait for them to realize the line has moved.
And the other guy is any different??
"Still no specifics on what tax deductions get cut ..."
Based on the assumption that it would be necessary - why, again? Oh yeah, not because Romney said he was making cuts, but because some Democratic "think tank" (now THERE's an oxymoron) said he'd have to and they suggested some he might.
No specifics on tax plan. Romney was picking numbers out of thin air.....talking about a $25,000 maximun deduction available to everyone. In his own words he said, "Pick a Number".
We deserve the government we vote for....and we deserve to know what we are voting for. They need to explain so the voting public knows what will be proposed. President Obama made it very clear four years ago. 39% rate on income > 250k. Why cannot Romney or Ryan do the same?
"No specifics on tax plan. Romney was picking numbers out of thin air.....talking about a $25,000 maximun deduction available to everyone. In his own words he said, "Pick a Number"."
That's what I thought I heard. Each person may have up to 25k in deductions. No more. You would think the left would be cheering that. Limiting deductions to a dollar amount for everyone leaves all the deductions intact for the low and intermediate earners, but hits the big dollar boys for the other million they took in deductions last year.
I don't like his cult status and won't vote for him, but Romney's tax plan seems a lot better than the garbage can of a system we have now.
The American People
The nice thing about Crowley butting in then having to retract is that this issue will be front and center. And, for the record, a terrorist attack is not a "tragedy", it is murder. And, BTW, where's the guy who made the video - still in jail? Aren't we proud of our president for that?
The guy who made the movie is in jail because he broke his parole. He was found guilty of internet fraud a long time ago. He was out on parole and wasn't suppose to be involved with using the internet. I would also say, that if he really did raise 5 million dollars to make this movie, then he might be charged with fraud again, if any of the people dumb enough to give him money wanted to press the issue. Also, the actors could have him charged with fraud, at least in civil court for misrepresenting what the real script was going to be. He apparently dubbed over what they said. The man isn't exactly or even close to being a fine, upstanding citizen. But I'm real sure you would be willing to nominate him for the next Republican candidate in 4 years.
Actually, at least one of the actors is in fact suing him as well.
Murder is also tragic.
Romney is not winning on this Libya line of attack. Presidents are not capable of keeping all Americans safe all around the world at all times. They use the intelligence they have on hand to do the best they can, and even then it isn't always successful.
The guy who made the video is in jail for violating his parole. The president had nothing to do with it. Are you suggesting criminals who violate their parole should be ignored? Are all conservatives soft on crime, or is it just you?
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
"Binders full of women" - a lie, of course.
What actually happened was that in 2002—prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration—a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.
They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.
Romney’s claim last night, that he asked for such a study, is false.
Oh, and once he had those binders? He hired women for agencies he then cut the funding for.
There were actually fewer women in executive positions when Romney left office than there were when he started.
That scant man can't tell the truth about anything.
A mean-spirited, spoiled, petulant and whupped Mittens walks away mad. If it had been a game, Mitt would have taken his ball and went home
The President only lost one of his shoe's up Romney's behind. Apparently, the blow was not a direct hit, leaving mittens with one still intact. I guess that's why he prefers Mitt rather than Mittens.
Come on, that isn't fair. I'll bet Mitt Romney put his money in the Cayman Islands long before Obama ever became president.
Obama won on emotion and dignity. He showed America that he cares and we should care. The five point plan The Mitten was talking about reminded me of Herme and the nine, nine, nine policy.
America needs to let the President lead us to the promised land. And not let "The Mitten" lead us down the toilet while the rich enjoy the fruits of our labor.
On to the polls America and let the President win!!!!
I am sick and tired of all the liberturds and their lies that Governor Romney's tax plan is void of specifics. They are right here. Check it out yourself.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.