pres debate #2 (Page 2)

This one is actually a town hall format with questions from the audiance. The last debate will focus on foreign policy.

I think Obama the charmer will be out in full force tonight and he should do well. I'm curious to see how Mitt does.

An interesting point that I read is that the public is tolerant of candidates going off topic or tangents with answering questions in this format. It's one thing if they don't respect the question from a moderator but another if they don't directly answer a question from a citizen.

There might be a drinking game in there somewhere. Take a drink when the candidate doesn't actually answer the question.

Oops, that's right.  Got them mixed up.

As for Obama the "charmer" the man can deliver a speech like no one.  But ask him to speak off the top of his head and you get what you got in the last debate.

You are Satan White Pants remember....

I'd like to hear BO explain the security failures in Libya; but the Congressional hearing on the matter has now been classified-it seems the CIA might be more involved than previously thought.

I'd like Mittens to explain his tax plan when almost every economist has said it just can't happen unless you tap Mortgage Interest exemption, Education deductions and capital gains.

I'd like someone to ask BO why some of the TARP funds weren't used to buy down the principal on millions of home loans.

I'd like Mittens to distinguish WHY his foreign policy approach in Syria and Iran is different than what's being done.   Is he really willing to put boots on the ground?  If not, he's singing the same tune as BO.

Also for Mittens-How is BO's 700 million Medicare "cut" (which is actually taken from money saved) different from Paul Ryan's 700 million Medicare cut? (which is essentially the same thing)

And Romney chose to make a political speech on the topic before the Ambassador's death had even been reported or the White House had made a statement. 

You may like answers, but you still are not going to get them.

And as far as the bold, I would have been mad if he did.

What did Romney say and when did he say it?

Wow-Mittens sounds like an OK guy!  I know he lies, and misspeaks, and can't add very well and flips/flops, but sheeeet, he sure can sound "Presidential" 

 btw:  Mittens hauled in $170 mil.  Repubs have been mostly foiled at their obvious attempts at voter supression and the Koch brothers are threatening to fire anyone who doesn't vote Repub.  If you wanna wrap yourself up in a warm, fuzzy Mitten's "Freedom of Speech" dialogue, be my guest.  But seriously-watch some news other than FOX.    

Jeff, is this really the best response you can come up with?

Romney issued a press release ( embargoed ) early in the day protesting the Administration's "apology".  At the point when that was issued, the Libya attack had not occurred.  The "apology" was the statement put out by the Egyptian embassy where they *were* seeing protests occur over the film, as it had been receiving publicity over the weekend on the news.

There's some serious conflation of the statements made surrounding the situation in Egypt on both sides here, where there were protests going on in response to the film, which are being spun to make each other look indifferent or insensitive to what happened much later in the day at the Libyan consulate.

I believe that is what he's saying...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/benghazi-hearing/

"Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs, said in her prepared testimony that she had a firm grasp on what happened in Benghazi, starting mere moments after the mission came under assault. ”When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the tactical operations center immediately… alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby … and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time,” Lamb explained."

No, But to borrow a phrase from Paul Ryan, the 'proper' response would take too long   On Election day, everyone (unless they're victims of voter supression) will get to voice their opinion as to the direction of this country.  I encourage everyone to go vote.  

As far as Libya goes.  ??It happened on BO's watch-so the buck stops THERE.  But here's the deal...Every bit of information we've received has been vetted, sifted and manipulated by the CIA, State Dept. and others.  The reality is WE don't know what really happened; WE don't know what options, diplomatic or military, were available; WE don't know who's to blame.   Regardless of our combined military backgrounds; we're all just armchair diplomats.  I believe there are people, on BOTH sides of the ideological isle, that are waaayyy more informed than I.  I trust that they'll make the decisions they think are best.  If we don't have at least that level of basic trust in our diplomats-our problems go way deeper than simply electing a president.

Thanks CD, I appreciate the response and info and expanding my vocabulary. Your explanation has caused me to re-think some of my initial opinions. 

It would be nice to see a time line as to what happened when & where. I was under the impression there were NO video protests prior to the terrorist attack in Benghazi and I thought Romney had not commented until 9/12.

Some questions that I don't think the public has any answers to pertain to the attacks on the embassy the months leading up to 9/11 who knew what? Who denied the Embassy the additional security they requested.

Is it logical to think that our embassy in Benghazi was bombed twice prior to 9/11 attack and the President was not informed?

So much for "Transparency and Open Government".

And your last comment makes me wonder, do you think we were right to trust GWB in the lead-up to Iraq?  Just hit the "I believe button?" 

If not, then why are you advocating hitting the "I believe button" now?

Great Points, Believe me, I know!  I scratch my head in bemusement on a daily basis.  I did believe GWB on Iraq,  and regardless of the failure to find any WMDs,  the world is a better place without Saddam.  Did he lie?  I Don't Know!  I didn't vote for GWB, didn't like him as a president, but I had NO doubt that HE believed his actions were just.  It's all about what 'vision' of the world you have.  My vision is different from yours, but I don't doubt your commitment.  I imagine the magnitude of "secrets" that are required to function as a world power are staggering beyond belief.  

We all gotta believe in something, right?  I believe our govts. primary responsibility, regardless of the party in power, is to act in the best interest of it's people.  And while I may OFTEN disagree with the direction we take as a country-I'm confident we all really want the same basic things.  We're still young as a country.  I BELIEVE we'll get it right.... ....eventually. 

Meh,

Look who's stealing your ideas!

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/10/16/presidential-debate-drinking-games-for-round-two/

I think Jeff was referring to the statement Romney released on the night of 9-11, which stated “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”  At the time Romney's statement was released, there had been no word from Obama or anyone in his administration regarding the Benghazi attack, and only the tweets from the US Embassy in Cairo regarding the Cairo protests.