Finlay and Smart is on tonight right after the debate! Click here to listen at 7:30/10:30. 
Tune in at 7:30 for our take on on the showdown. Don’t expect the party line, the media line, or any other line. Anita and I will call it as we see it.
Recent Comments
conner43 on Salamisha Tillet conner43 on Obama V. Obama JohnSmart on Bushbama Matt Cavanaugh on Bushbama Sweet Sue on Bushbama Thank You!
Buy This Movie!
On the radio!
First news of the night: Obama showed up.
Obama sounds like Bill Clinton coached him.
If so, he’d have been charming.
Millions of people think Obama is charming. Just as millions think Romney is. And millions think Hillary isn’t charming at all. Can be a bit subjective.
Speaking of personality traits, I felt bad for you –and conner and run-dmc– as I watched Romney’s good manners evaporate and his rudeness vomit all over Candy Crowley who had her hair did special for the occasion.
Well, Zal, you might save your pity for me — and connor and run — because, guess what, Romney wasn’t rude to Crowley. If you think Romney’s behavior came anywhere close to Biden’s, then you’ve started mainlining koolaid. Get some methadone.
It was worse than Biden’s.
Biden went after his opponent, which is what these debates are all about.
Romney was rude to the moderator, he bullied her. If Obama had done that you’d be steaming six ways to Sunday.
How silly you sound, Zal.
1. Biden did go after Raddatz. Pointed a finger in her face and insisted that she “be straight with him.”
2. Romney wasn’t “rude” to Crowley; he was a little pushy (not unlike O…see pt. 3 below).
3. Obama cut off and talked over Crowley often, and especially at the end (last q., last answer).
Zal – HAH. No reason to feel bad for me as I always find it so very amusing when your need to insult overwhelms what you think is a carefully scripted persona of “non-Obama supporter.” I know it’s hard to keep that mask on, particularly late at night after a debate drinking game, but it tickles me no end when your own words prove that you really are going to vote for Obama.
Also – I’m pleased as punch with the aftermath: Gallup has Romney up 51 – 45 and even MSNBC undecided voters are now moving to Romney: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbcs-undecided-voter-panel-swayed-romney_654728.html
So – it’s all good in my world.
I also didn’t think Romney was rude, but I did loathe O every time he opened his lying mouth. And frankly, Crowley kept cutting off Mitt and I was getting very annoyed by that especially about Libya.
on soon:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/johnwsmart/2012/10/17/finlay-and-smart-talk
Obama’s doing much better, but he’s now the one lying. “Rose garden the day after the attack, I said it was an act of terror?” Wow – slilck. I just read the transcript. He called it, repeatedly, an “attack” not an act of terror. Then, much later in the transcript, he said “no acts of terror will shake our resolve . . . ” Carefully not specifically connected to the actual act in Benghazi. He DID NOT call Benghazi a terrorist attack. Sorry. And, that’s not the only area where he was lying. But, he is doing good. I’ll freely admit.
As I am not voting for either one and as due to work I could not see the first debate live, this gave me a chance to observe. I’d say O bested R. He got the only applause of the night for the Benghazi exchange. Run, R could have run with this, but he lacked the killer instinct that a well-coached, beta-blocked O possesses, and R fumbled the attack here and other places, as with the “you get Chinese pension funds too, nyah-nyah” failed riposte. Given that supposedly undecided voters were asking questions, it seems few would risk abandoning the same-old Dem for the hesitant, antsy GOP standardbearer. I found both candidates handled their own corner, but the moderator let O walk over her towards the end and this showed O in aggressive, but composed, mode to his advantage over R. Now, I await the spin-doctors and my O-bot family + friends to tell me who “really” won.
I take your point, but Romney knew what he was doing when he kept asking – “did you say that Benghazi was a terrorist attack?” He’s thinking about the upcoming foreign policy debate and the next news cycle. But, people in either camp will think that their “guy” won.
Ok – Obama’s slip up is saying that there are some jobs that won’t come back – low wage, low skilled jobs. Many of Obama’s voters think they are competing for those jobs. They may not be watching this debate either, but as much as many people don’t think they are in the 47%, many do think they are in the skill level who will get left out of the new economy. Not sure that was a great line, but probably (ok won’t) get picked up.
“I believe in the free enterprise system?” COME ON. He ABSOLUTELY believes that government creates jobs.
Obama never fails to underestimate the intelligence of his audience. There’s no one who can sincerely believe Obama champions free enterprise.
He just needs to put “As I’ve always said” in front of anything and it become the gods honest truth.
Wow – his grandfather fighting in WWII – you mean his white grandfather? Didn’t realize he’d acknowledge him.
Run, I can’t believe you’ve missed this amusing part of Obama’s lying repertoire. Back when he was running he talked about his grandfather joining up as soon as Pearl Harbor was attacked but records showed dear old Grand-dad didn’t sign up for some time afterward (might even have been drafted).
Then he started talking about his uncle (his white grandmother’s brother) who supposedly liberated Auschwitz but that didn’t work so then it was Buchenwald but that was Russians liberating so then it was some outpost of Buchenwald. That’s what I recall though it was several years ago.
Before long he was seeing the dead at memorial services and honoring navy corpse-men. His lack of knowledge of our military is unbelievable and his abiity to lie without any trace of remorse still shocks me no matter how often I see it done. Obama is truly creepy.
Or he was in the Navy. Or he piloted a desk stateside. Or he was 4-F. All these have been mentioned; no on really knows. Maybe obama’s gramps was also park Cherokee.
Wow – knew about the uncle; did not know about the grandfather. Thanks, Grey!
Bottom line: Obama won.
Disagree. It was a draw.
Bottom line it wont matter in Nov. or January when the Romney’s start measuring for drapes.
Romney did great. He only had to show that he could relate to people and he did. There will be a lot of fact checking after – in particular on the “terror attack” and it won’t look good for the president. People already see him as president and this will solidify that for them. Only Obama supporters will think that Obama “won.”
Agreed.
Also, Libya and what O said about Benghazi will be the topic of conversation for the next few days, which isn’t good for O.
Of course, Candy Crowley had to walk back her gratuitous fact-check of R. Silly MSM!
I do have to say – these two look like they want to actually punch each other. I really wish that weren’t true, but I blame Obama for the nastiness that has become our politics in the last 5 years. But, even at 65 years old, I’d give a physical brawl to Romney. Obama just looks like he’s swimming in his suit.
Last debate, Romney made Obama look like a young punk. This week Obama made Romney look like an ‘old white guy’.
Obama by a hair.
“This week Obama made Romney look like an ‘old white guy’.”
An “old white guy” to fix the economy may be just what people are looking for.
Yes — but it also energizes Obama’s cult.
Obama’s cult isn’t large enough to win an election any longer. They are still loud, distracting and numerous in some regions but too many “casual” 2008 groupies have straggled or have been left on the side of the road.
I think they both where good. It actually was a good debate even thought I think Obama really lied about a bunch of things, but – you know if you do that and the opponent doesn’t come back at you – that’s how debates go. But, Romney didn’t have to win; Obama had to actually turn the tide and he definitely didn’t. And, NO ONE will remember – as I think I mentioned in an early thread – the middle debate. They’ll remember the first one that redefined Romney and they’ll remember the last one. This one was fun, but always going to be sort of a wash. But, the analysis will be fascinating.
My O-Bot friends already hard at work spinning this, but I agree- as long as R did not wash out, he’s hanging in there. He did so until near the end. He did blurt that “100%” of Americans” remark that allowed O the obvious wedge to ram back hard the “47%” reminder, which weakened R. I’d say before that, the debate was more even, if lackluster. I’d admit O won but not a knockout; he wore R down a bit by the close of what felt an endless exchange. O also ran over the moderator late on, to press an advantage. He needed to be seen as “aggressive” as R, and he held his pretend smile better than R, who hesitated more and used too much “filler” while O bided his time. Both managed wonderfully to evade key questions, in time-honored debate fashion.
Oh, I think MR uses that 100% comment to pre-empt the 47% attack — he’s done it twice now.
Agree on Tamer’s preemption point.
O keeps more or less sticking to his stump speech, which plays on class envy and not laying out a plan for the future, he also slanted the truth a lot, and attacked Romney. Same ol’, same ol’, he may have won by a nose with Crowley’s help. Romney beat himself.
Of course barry would do better this time — that handful of blues surely helped. Romney did about the same as last time – took a few more risks; scored on some, whiffed on others. So they both made their pitches reasonably well. Now it’s down to which pitch resonates more.
Handful of blues? Is that drugs?
I thought O won by a whisker this time. But he left people with no reason to vote for him which is a problem. I’m curious as hell about what the flash polls will say about who won.
CNN:
BO overall winner, 37% -30% (so, 33% say a tie??);
MR winner on economy, 65% – 34%
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/16/CBS-Debate-Poll-Romney-Wins-on-Economy
“But he left people with no reason to vote for him which is a problem. ”
barry performed better this time by returning to a challenger/stump speech mode, a la 2008. But Romney hit hard on speeches & promises vs. track record.
The only reason he gave for getting 4 more years is, ‘it’s really hard, I’m trying.’ (Maybe in a day or two, A-Rod will join the campaign.) MR hit hard on that too, saying [paraphrase} ‘he tried. But he didn’t get it done.’
And still no way to make Romney scary ever again.
“Maybe in a day or two, A-Rod will join the campaign.”
If that happens, hopefully A-Rod will be as useless to Obama in October as he is to the Yankees in October.
Something I noticed right away and throughout the debate — Romney engaged the questioners as people; barry not really.
Yes, he acknowledged the people he spoke to. Looked at them. Addressed them by their name.
Too funny when Romney had to ask the latina woman to repeat her name a couple of times … and then Obama (who up untill then hadn’t seemed concerned about neither the questioners or their names) did the same! A sort of “What he said”.
“MR winner on economy, 65% – 34%”
That says it all, doesn’t it? If this poll is an accurate reflection of what voters think, then Romney’ll win on Nov 6.
It really does. The CNN poll of debate watchers favored Romney on every important issue, particularly those that I think people vote on like the economy.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around Crowley lying for Obama. How did we get to the point that a so-called “journalist” actively injects disinformation into a presidential debate? This is truly crazy.
Crowley didn’t lie. She told the truth.
Romney got ensnared by the wording.
Obama said he’d stood in the Rose Garden and called it an “act of terror.”
Romney repeated the exact words, “act of terror.”
And in fact, those exact words were the ones Obama had spoken in the Rose Garden: “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.”
Obama had clearly been carefully coached about word choice, and Romney isn’t smart enough to look out for that. Candy Crowley didn’t lie for Obama, she got it right.
Zal, even Candy Crowley walked back on that judgment call. Don’t let your hatred for Romney help you to (again) come to Obama’s defense. It just makes you look desperate.
In a post debate interview, Crowley said:
It has less to do with “Romney isn’t smart enough to look at that” than it does about a moderator who will parse words to obscure a fact and let her own partisanship get in the way of fair debate moderation.
That’s what I said, the way I put it was, “Romney got ensnared by the wording.” It was about word choice.
Romney wasn’t smart enough, or hasn’t the intellectual dexterity, to deal with Obama coming prepared with a word choice that the original transcript would support. And frankly that does speak to Romney’s smarts because a smart debater would’ve been especially alert about that subject and assumed if Obama had been coached at all he’d have been carefully coached about how to word his response about Benghazi.
Romney wins because of semantics and moderator’s bias. Doesn’t mean stupid.
This is rich:
Nearly all politicians are false front stage sets. They’re really good at memorizing figures at talking points, but have little comprehension of matters beyond that.
Romney blew this one because he didn’t have at his grasp the crux of the issue — why was the WH and Susan Rice talking about a youtube for five weeks after the State Dept. at least knew there was no youtube protest?
I found it curious how quickly barry and Crowley jumped on the point and were in sync, as if they’d prepared….
The line you quote does not say that our embassy in Libya suffered a terrorist attack. The Obama administration spent weeks blaming the attack on a video which instigated a protest that got out of hand when there was never any protest. Obama lied. And Crowley lied to cover for him. The WH and the US media spread this disinformation for weeks and now they are lying about lying about the attack. And now you’re doing it too, Zal.
A presidential debate is not the place for the moderator to inject “spin.” But at least we saw with our very own eyes the active participation of the Fourth Estate (turned propaganda pusher) in the dissemination of the WH’s disinformation campaign.
It’s open to interpretation, gxm. On one hand it’s a stand alone paragraph that could be about anything, and on the other hand it’s in the middle of a statement that’s clearly about what happened in Benghazi. Depending on how one wants to read it, it can be properly interpreted at least two ways and probably more.
This is SOP, at least in the modern era. Words are chosen carefully and narratives are framed with plausible deniability. It’s the reason “parsing” has become a commonly used term. That’s what they do, including Obama and Romney, and therefore has to be woven into analysis of exchanges like that.
Romney, as I said, got ensnared in word choice. Obama’s opponent ought to have known better, ought to have been better prepared to take control of the narrative. He was thrown by Obama going on offense and assertively choosing which words were introduced into the debate regarding his response to Bengazi, and then Romney didn’t have the dexterity and quickness of mind to reframe it. It could have been a winning moment for him but he let it slip away.
It has less to do with “Romney isn’t smart enough to look at that” than it does about a moderator who will parse words to obscure a fact and let her own partisanship get in the way of fair debate moderation.
This.
“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” neither expresses or infers “Our embassy in Libya suffered a brutal, terrorist attack that was premeditated to fall on September 11.” Vague, misleading language is not “semantics.” It is the anti-semantics. It is not meant to communicate. It is meant to distort all and any real meaning. We saw Crowley shamelessly hang her ass out on national TV, complicit in the WH’s duplicity. The Fourth Estate should be covering this scandal, not covering it up. UFB.
Zal, I’m calling bullshit. Bullshit on Obama. Bullshit on Crowley. And bullshit on you too. This quibbling is appalling. Romney did not get ensnared in wording. The only people “ensnared by wording” are the ones trying reshape reality with denial and duplicity.
Well gxm, you’re invested in an effort to believe someone on that stage was being forthright and honest. I’ve realized they’re both devious and deceptive. I’m merely analyzing the scene and the words objectively.
“Romney didn’t have the dexterity and quickness of mind to reframe it. It could have been a winning moment for him but he let it slip away.”
Zal’s pointing out a glaring fact. If Romney wanted to hit obama on this point (and obama is extremely vulnerable — Watergate vulnerable — on this), he should have read the fucking Rose Garden transcript beforehand.
Zal, on this point, one person was telling the truth. And whether you like it or not, that person was Mitt Romney. Obama and Crowley were quibbling about the Benghazi cover-up. The truth is that our embassy in Libya suffered a coordinated, prolonged, heavily armed, terrorist attack. The truth is that Ambassador Stevens was assassinated. The truth is that there was no protest over a video. The truth is that the WH knew the truth early on. These are truths that can’t be quibbled away. And those who choose to manipulate these tragic facts should be held to the strongest censure.
Gxm, the transcript of the debate and of Obama’s Rose Garden remarks are clear and Obama and Crowley were telling the truth. Not that Romney was lying, but what he chose to do is question the veracity of Obama having said “act of terror” and the truth is Obama did say that in the Rose Garden. He also, incidentally, said it the following day in Colorado:
That’s just a fact.
It’s the way it happened. It’s the truth.
The rest of what you wrote:
is talking points Romney might have presented in a way that damned Obama. But he didn’t. As I said, Romney let the opportunity slip away. It was a debate and what happened happened; your trying to add pieces to it now is, actually, disingenuous.
BS, Zal. You’re full of it.
At no point in his remarks did Obama call the embassy attack an “act of terror.” Worse, the WH spent weeks misleading the Americans, and the world, with that stupid video and a non-existent protest. Obama lied. Crowley lied. And, unfortunately for you, Mitt Romney didn’t.
Why “unfortunately for” me?
I don’t give a shit. They’re both scum and either will be a terrible President – for different reasons.
But if you’re under 55 and not a member of the upper investor class, and Mitt Romney becomes President, the “unfortunately” will be on your doorstep.
Me, I’ll be just fine. And I tried to warn you.
Zal “will be just fine.”. Really – thought he was a homeless performance artist living in NYC??.
Homeless in New York? Never. I was homeless, briefly, thirty-five years ago, in the Southwest. A much pleasanter place to be homeless.
Unfortunate for you, Zal, because you are siding with the lying and deceit under the pretense of objectivity. How often have you beat your chest and raged against the political machine in one breath only to embrace it in another? I’ve lost count. But here you are, with Crowley and Obama, just hanging your ass out for all to see. And, apparently you don’t even realize it. It is most unfortunate. Only the truly desperate and/or truly devious would ever insist that Obama’s despicable Benghazi charade has a shred of honesty attached to it.
Zal – you honestly have absolutely no sense of humor. I was mocking you for your claims of being all things in all places depending on the thread. I don’t actually believe that you are any of the things you’ve claimed to be – including homeless anywhere. It’s sar.ca.sm.
Gxm, I’m siding with the truth.
I’ve read both transcripts, Obama’s statement in the Rose Garden and what he and Romney and Crowley said at the debate, and what I’ve defended is simply true. It’s there in black and white, it’s documented, there’s public evidence. You can say whatever nasty you thing you want about me, it doesn’t change the truth.
Run, you’re one of those people who thinks because I don’t think your humor is funny, and you think my humor isn’t funny, that means I have no sense of humor. And because I don’t attack Obama the same way you do, that means I don’t oppose him.
I get it. I get who you are.
And no I don’t think homelessness is funny. It wasn’t funny for me when I was, it wasn’t funny for the people I knew during that time who were homeless next to me, and it’s not funny for people we don’t know who are homeless. That doesn’t mean I think you don’t have a sense of humor, only that we don’t laugh at the same things.
Zal, if it is a fact, “in black and white,” that Obama called the attack on our embassy a terrorist act, then why didn’t anyone report it as such? Being a fact and all. Or are newspapers not supposed to report facts? Why were the news outlets saying “protesters,” not terrorists attacked the embassy? News reports blamed a little know video for the attack, not terrorists. And why did VOA report on September 20, over one week later, that “The Obama administration on Thursday called last week’s assault on the U.S. consulate in Libya a terrorist attack. This is the first time that White House officials have called the incident a deliberate attack, rather than a part of protests against a video that many Muslims consider offensive.” And, FTR, from the same article, Obama was still claiming that the fictional protest had taken place in Libya. “A short time later, President Barack Obama said that protests over a video that ridicules the Prophet Muhammad were used as a pretext for a planned strike against Americans.”
http://www.voanews.com/content/white_house_says_terrorism_is_self_evident_in_libya_attack/1511993.html
The answer of course is that Obama never said “in black and white” that the embassy suffered at terrorist attack. He made one vague, fog-hued, reference to “acts of terror.” He never once said that our embassy was hit by a brutal, premeditated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. The MSM has enabled this lie, “journalists” like Crowley have enabled this lie, and people like you have enabled this lie. And everyone single one of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Zal – I don’t think homelessness is funny. I think you are. As funny as my former neighbor who thought he was an “internationally known” man. And, like I’m sure he is, I believe you are an Obama supporter not because you “don’t attack him as I do” (neiither does Tamer and many others and I fully believe they aren’t Obama supporters) but because you almost never attack him at all, leveling your vitriol on MR.
Obama always acts like he hasn’t been president for the past 4 years (except about Bin Ladin) and he’s still trying out for a new job. I was glad Romney actually pointed out that the Democrats controlled congress for the first 2 years of Obama’s Presidency.
I noticed that too. He presented himself like the challenger instead of the incumbent.
I agree that O won by a hair on style and optics, but there was one glaring omission: He offered no reason why anyone should vote for his re-election, no plan for the next 4 years except “I’ll keep on trying”
O won on points, technically. But, he certainly didn’t make up for the disaster of his first performance. Also, the cost to him of his aggression in this debate was enormous: he came across as unlikeable and angry. For him, shorn as he is of any popular accomplishments (save OBL), that’s a #BFD loss.
Obama sounded more like a WATB begging Candy to stop Mitt whenever he felt that Mitt was saying something that he didn’t like and about time. Maybe he rallied his base for the moment but his base is a lot smaller in downtown Wisconsin than before – have only seen 1 or 2 small signs for him but more and larger signs for Romney.
Piper you are spot on..There was one Alpha male on that stage, there was also a whiny snot who kept calling on the girl to bail him out.
That’s funny, conner, Biden was rude and you sang Romney’s praises for his “good manners.” Now Romney’s rudeness is “Alpha” and Obama’s good manners are “whiny snot.”
Have to admit that although the reason I’m observing objectively is sad for our country, two equally though differently horrendous Presidential contenders and their sidekicks, I think I’ve never learned so much as I have this campaign season.
Romney has a plan, and he honestly believes his plan will work. It will fail. barry has no plan, never did, and doesn’t give a shit what happens to America or other people.
I think Romney’s energy plan — and obama’s me-too bullshit — will be devastating to the environment and global warming. Both men talked as if BP and this Summer’s droughts never happened. But barry was caught in blatant lies about his energy policy, and failed to explain why it’s OK that gas prices have doubled since he took office.
Spot on, Tam.
Next week will be interesting, O was over-coached this week, which had to be insulting for him. He may not be willing to subject himself to that sort of rigorous exercise again, if so, he will lose.
Zal, presentation is everything in our celebrity culture. Biden reminded me of those odious old men who used to frequent my uncle’s Irish bar. Condescending and misogynist. He set my teeth on edge. And yes, I thought Romney maintained a gentlemanly aspect, despite an opponent who’s main argument was ‘he lies’, while showing up for the play date with only talking points and no plans.
I’m glad you find your fellow posters amusing, we all need a good laugh every day, as long as it’s not condescension masquerading as amusement.
Quite right, connor.
But, I have to say, respectfully, where have you been all this time? Zal has always exhibited “condescension masquerading as amusement” (or anger). It’s only lately that’s he’s turned it against you. And, why has he done that? In my opinion, it’s because you no longer agree with him or because you appear to be supporting Romney. He’s trying to control you — but, god bless your heart, you’re not to be control. Keep up the feistiness; I always enjoy reading your comments (even when we disagree, periodically).
Erratum: “…but, god bless your heart, you’re not to be controlled.”
Alas, I think Obama is going to find his groove next week. Obama’s dangerous expansions on the powers of the President to do whatever he likes (ordering drone strikes and killings without trials, etc) makes Imperial Republicans moist with envy. Romney is going to have his work cut out for him.
Exactly.
I don’t know what there’ll be for the two of them to debate. That is, unless Romney takes the liberal position that existed in 2008 and all during Bush’s tenure.
Imagine a debate with all the national candidates present, and Stein, Anderson, Johnson and Roseanne tag-teaming these two imperialist tyrants.
I’ll imagine that as I drift to sleep tonight; maybe it’ll spark a sweet dream.
If only.
BTW, did you see Jill Stein was arrested last night when she tried to force her way into the debate? I’m liking her more and more.
Zal – If Romney did that he’d win the election.
Especially if he nailed the Obots in the media with “Funny how something liberals objected so strenuously to when George W. Bush was President is now perfectly fine with them under President Obama.”
It would such delicious fun to see the Obots twist themselves in knots over it.
I wonder if you’re right. I know I’d listen to Romney with new ears but I can’t figure out exactly what happened to all these others who used to identify as liberals, smartly rejected Obama, and are now advocating for Romney. Aside from O’s and R’s lies, there’s really very little difference between Obama or Romney in the WH.
I mean, it’s not inconsequential that as recently as four years ago issues like civil liberties and military commissions and Gitmo were very much a part of the conversation, and since Obama became President they’ve vanished. Obama supporters don’t want to talk about it because Obama’s worse than Bush, and conservative Romney supporters don’t want to talk about it because they’re okay with it. But what about liberals who never supported Obama? A few try to raise those issues but most have either moved over to Obama or over to Romney — and are following the unspoken don’t ask don’t tell directive to steer away from those discussions and instead direct conversation to distractions.
It really appears the process is nearly complete – first they got half the population with Bush then a big part of the Left with Obama, and now a big part of what’s left of the Left is split between Obama and Romney. Sort of today’s version of first they came for the unionists; it’s just being done in an Orwellian way.
Glenn Greenwald ON FIRE. Short and sweet.
The only mainstream journalist to call out the hypocrisy of Obama (and by extention the entire Obot-loving media)
***********************************************************************
In Tuesday night’s debate, President Obama delivered a bold, powerful, aggressive performance that has Democrats across the land cheering. One of his most effective lines about the oligarchical fraud known as Mitt Romney was this one:
“Governor Romney says he’s got a five-point plan. Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan; he has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules.”
It would be terrible indeed if “folks at the top” were able to “play by a different set of rules”. It might mean that Wall Street tycoons could perpetrate a massive fraud that virtually collapses the world economy and causes massive economic suffering, yet suffer no consequences of any kind thanks to a subservient Justice Department – all while ordinary Americans are subjected to the world’s largest and one of its most unmerciful penal states. It might mean that the nation’s largest telecoms could enable illegal spying on millions of their customers and then be retroactively immunized from all civil and criminal liability.
Such a state affairs could permit the nation’s most powerful political officials to be able to institute a worldwide torture regime, and systematically spy on the conversations of Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, only to be aggressively vested with full-scale immunity by the President. It could even send the rich-poor gap to heights not seen in the US in many decades.
In sum, we simply cannot afford as a nation to allow “folks at the top” to “play by a different set of rules”. That would be a violent breach of everything America stands for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/obama-romney-debate
Zal, you’re becoming a bit of “Radio Obama,” aren’t you? A little balance might be called for if you want to maintain your reputation as a neutral, supposedly disgusted by/alienated from both MR and BO. Just a thought.
Tee hee – Zal the Obama supporter is starting to emerge like the alien from John Hurt’s stomach. And like the alien – always knew he wouldn’t be able to stay in there. . .
Sorry, I don’t know what you are talking about. He stated that Obama won the debate and that both Obama and Romney are scum. He is right on both accounts.
I would have loved to have seen Obama fold like a house of cards like he did in the first debate. Alas, it did not happen.
Zal has made essentially the same points that I have. You call him a secret obama supporter; why don’t y’all call me one, too?
Tam, the answer to your question: it’s because you take on Obama with sincere contempt, and you slap him around as much as (probably more than) you do MR; by contrast, Zal’s put-downs of Obama are perfunctory and seem forced (as seeming precursors to is broadsides against MR). That said, I dot care if Zal supports O; I reserve the right, however, to jab him about it though (in good fun, and all).
Ugh…Erratum: “That said, I don’t care if…”
Though I’ve had a hard time reconciling the Zal who comments here with the Zaladonis who wrote the eloquent and moving post (at Skydancing) about coming out, I’ve been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But his defense of the Benghazi cover-up, Obama’s lies, and the complicity of the MSM, is so over the top that I don’t know why he bothers to keep up the pretense.
I’ve never defended a Benghazi cover-up or any Obama lie, and I’ve been very harsh about the MSM for several years now. That’s the truth.
You mention Skydancing. If you or anybody else wants to see what Hillary supporters who loathed Obama and are now defending him sound like, go there.
A fascinating thing happened with Hillary supporters. We’ve splintered into three groups. Some are with Obama. Some are with Romney. And some few, including me, the smallest group from what I’ve seen, have held steadfast to our principles and refuse to give either devious deceitful destructive major party our support.
You might at least attack me for what I actually believe and have written.
Tamer – sorry I can’t feed you on this, but unlike you, Zal is far from an equal opportunity critic of them both. The little that he does critique Obama is not only few and far between, but is milquetoast. His criticisms of Romney are ferocious, frequent, often false (unlike yours), and even go off into the grotesque and misogynistic like the enormously unfunny video of “Ann Romney” which I will not let him forget and which, tamer, I can’t imagine you ever posting. He, lately, hasn’t even tried to make a pretense of being neutral as between those two. (oh, and lest I forget, he is now openly claiming that Romney is or will be not only worse than Obama but worse than Bush. Tells me all I need to know)