Heaven help me, I’m watching the debate and my Twitter feed tonight.
I’d like to see the practice debate partners go at it.
You really want to see more of John Kerry?
These guys aren’t terribly entertaining.
Romney’s pushing his luck with the interrupt/get-close/attack.
Obama: “Romney wants beaurocrats in Washington deciding your health care”.
If Obama doesn’t hit back with IBAP, I’m voting Roseanne Barr.
So after the two minute responses to each answer, Candy can do follow-ups without any time structure whatsoever? And Romney agreed to this?!?
Obama has the same problem as last time….he thinks hes a expert on Rommeys plans and either he isnt in any way or something is lying…..maybe both.
Am noticing a pattern of Dem talking points in some of these questions but so far no Repub ones directed at POTUS
It looks like Romney figured out he was about to go Full Biden.
^ HA! I caught that, too.
“Mr. Romney, I’m going to have to ask you to sit down so President Obama can interrupt you.”
NPR’s Peter Sagal: “Can we all agree this would be more entertaining, and easier on the candidates, if they replaced their stools with Segway scooters? “
How long before the SS has to tackle Mitt?
Question: “Who refused to post more security in Benghazi”
Obama: “Romney sent out a press release!!!”
^ Then Romney’s SS would have to tackle Obama’s SS.
”You don’t turn national security into a political issue. By the way, have I mentioned I personally pumped Bin Ladin full of lead?”
Romney closes with a defense of Romneycare. I don’t get that.
“I believe in self reliance, except for veterans, students, soldiers, the middle class, and everyone except rich-white people.”
Who picked these questions anyway? Most were on the lame end of the spectrum.
Crowley was fine, questions were lame, Romney totally blew Libya. Unfreaking believable.
Romney’s indictment of Obama’s last four years was devastating. You could play that as the best campaign ad ever.
The questions were typical town hall crap (I hate town hall debates), and I’m mystified by Romney’s Libya performance. It started weak, then got petulant and inaccurate before fizzling completely. The Benghazi story has a clear timeline I can recite in my sleep. How did Romney come into this debate apparently still unsure what happened when? BIG mistake.
Romney handled the Libya thing poorly from a debate scoring perspective. If the press wants to, though, the whole thing is now teed-up perfectly for hammering Obama over the head with it.
Candy hand picked all the questions. You could see the gun control bias come from her. All things considered though, she was a pretty good lion tamer. Could have used a chair, gun, and whip if SS allowed.
I can answer that Joe, because I screwed up big time the same way in college debate. Romney rehearsed a tactic for cornering Obama but didn’t have a plan B to resort to after Obama talked right around it. Spent too much time going after that angle and then Crowley cut him off. Not her fault Romney didn’t pounce with the huge opening.
I hate town hall formats, too. We learn abso-freakin’-lutely nothing of substance.
How did Romney come into this debate apparently still unsure what happened when?
ROMNEY doesn’t know what happened when?!?
BREAKING: CBS NEWS INSTANT POLL Who won debate? OBAMA: 37%; ROMNEY: 30%, TIE: 33% (Margin of Error: 4 pts.) http://CBSNews.com
Governor Romney was commanding on the issues. He certainly
understands fundamental economical principles as well as more
complex, economic applications. He answered the questions.
The President did not answer the Libya questions, the “Fast and
Furious” debacle, or, why he did not address the immigration and
other major issues when he was in control of both the House and
Senate in his first two years as President.
Romney HAD to have known that POTUS referred to “acts of terror” the next morning. He tripped over that for 60 precious seconds. Why would you pick the murkiest part of the story as your talking point? I can’t believe I saw that.
“The camera kind of enlarges things.” — things Candy Crowley probably shouldn’t say.
In the @CBSNews Instant Poll, 65% say Romney won on the issue of the economy. 34% say Obama won on the economy.
Romney HAD to have known that POTUS referred to “acts of terror” the next morning.
But Obama didn’t label THIS incident specifically as a “terror attack”, despite what Candy said. And he DID fly off to Vegas that day, not meet with his chiefs.
They both did well, Obama was on fire but Romney was no slouch. Romney f’ed up the Libya question. I would say Romney won but I would really call it a tie. Nothing changes (unfortunately)
Cursing on FNC from one of the Frank Luntz focus group guys.
Cavuto on FBN already spinning the questions has biased.
Of course..they started spinning the “liberal bias” a week ago. I told you they were gaming a loss. When you lose, you attack the moderator. That’s what liberals did until it dawned on them Obama was just horrible.
Romney blew it bigger than it looks right now. He got hit hard on flip-flops and vagueness; acted like a bit of a jackass; whiffed Libya; claimed he would work with Congress on gun control; and used his closing to support Romneycare, which was immediately followed by Obama killing him on “the 47%” to end the night.
I think it’s going to leave many independents and conservatives just as bewildered about who Mitt Romney is as they were up to two weeks ago. He had a bad night.
I enjoyed the debate. but I’ll wait for the polls and pundits to see who won. I do think Obama won the sound bite war. Tomorrow we’ll be seeing a lot of plays of Romney’s terror screw-up and Obama calling him offensive; to name just two sound bites that I expect to see in a lot of replays.
“Frank Luntz focus group”
^^ Funniest thing I saw tonight. That band of yahoos was straight out of the Tea Party central casting. LOL funny!
And now Candy’s walking back her Libya comment claim, saying that Romney was more right than wrong.
CNN is late on their poll because they can’t find enough Dems to plug into the poll (That may or may not be speculation on my part.)
Who knew Chris Farley came back to life and moderated the debate tonight???
Romney was effective with his litany of Obama promises that were not even attempted and economy failures.
The more I think about it, Romney’s failure on Libya may have cost him the debate but it’s also going to haunt the Obama campaign for days now.
More importantly: The Yankees kinda stink, don’t they?
Yeah, one of the focus-groupers mentioned QE3. That’s about as “undecided” as the lady asking about George Bush.
RT @kakukowski: Candy Crowley now says @MittRomney was right: “He was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word.” #debates
Does Wolf get an extra cookie every time he says the word ‘scientific’?
Fritz making fun of people like he is something to brag about.
I had to check my DVR for Hannity & Hannity because of what you guys are saying about Luntz’s focus group. Damn you.
Based on their comments and observations, no way they’re undecided about Obama V Romney. Has to be hard to find truly undecided voters at this stage who care enough to sit through a debate. ‘Independents’ who stay on top of the issues are going to vote heavily Romney.
^^ You would have been right at home there Larry.
My favorite was the lady who said she wasn’t undecided between Obama and Romney but rather Romney and not voting. I thought Luntz was going to have a heart attack. Like I said LOL funny.
The problem with the Libya angle is that though Romney muffed part of it, Obama left a story-line that will drag on for days. And not to his benefit.
Some of the watchers may also get curious about this “fast and furious” thing they are hearing about for the first time.
Those people had more teeth than I. And more brains than porno-cat.
The CNN polling on economic issues would seem to indicate that Al is right. And any mention of Libya won’t wear well on Obama, regardless of how poorly Rom handled it.
I doubt Fast and Furious has any legs but he did deliver one good line that I’m a bit surprised no one has brought up yet and that was when he said that the day after the Libya attack Obama went to a fundraiser. It’s a cheap shot but I thought it was effective.
Obama said “acts of terror”, and no one yet knew that there were no protests at the consulate that day. In other words, any variation of those phrases qualifies as “mostly right”, so I don’t see what Crowley is walking back. For Romney to focus on such a murky point was crazy. And since I’m apparently the only one who pays attention to these things, the fundraising was canceled. He showed up to an event a whole lotta people were already at.
I hate the crap that’s gone on with this administration and Benghazi, but facts matter.
Greta made the point that if Romney had handled the Libya question correctly, it would have just been one out of many questions and no big deal. The fact that it was muffed means that it will get much more focus than it otherwise would, along with the questions that arise. That’s basically what I was thinking, though she explained a lot better.
I think that’s wishful thinking on Greta’s part. Benghazi has affected my perception of the president quite a bit, but the polls show I’m in the minority on this. This doesn’t seem to be a make-or-break issue with most voters who were inclined towards Obama, and Romney missed an opportunity to make it one. He took his scolding from POTUS without confronting the “politics” angle, then meandered all over the stage about when/where/who/what said “terror”.
Obama may yet take a hit in the polls from Benghazi, but Romney took a hit tonight for still looking like he’s not ready for the War On Terror big leagues.
So the post-debate storyline will focus exclusively on Benghazi? pic.twitter.com/FI06N2qV
I agree that Romney’s response sucked. The point is, there will be more focus on that question and that issue as a result of the response, along with the consensus that Crowley handled it poorly.
The consensus that Crowley handled it poorly will be solely among the people already voting for Romney. The same ones who threw her under the bus a week ago. They should have held off the attack..now “Crowley screwed our guy” looks like nothing but predictable whining.
Obama said “acts of terror”, and no one yet knew that there were no protests at the consulate that day.
A State Dept official (I think her name is Lamb) testified that they were monitoring the attack in real time and knew it was a coordinated terrorist attack. That, along with the recent Benghazi terrorist attacks, the intel monitoring communications calling for an attack on 9/11… it’s becoming clearer that there’s little chance Obama didn’t know it was a terrorist attack by the time he spoke from the Rose garden.
Um, Crowley apologized. I don’t think she’s part of the conspiracy of whiners.
Crowley did handle that poorly but so what? She interrupted Romney (as best I can tell, anyway) because he spent too much time quizzing Obama without getting an answer. Had Romney dropped the stupid interrogation and gotten straight to his point it’s quite likely Obama would have had to move quickly to change the subject.
That monitoring does not specify that there was no evidence of an earlier protest. It’s entirely possible that they believed both things happened as of the next morning. These things are very confusing, and the bodies weren’t even in country yet. Romney had plenty of clearer moments to choose from to sack POTUS on Benghazi. He went with the murkiest one, which coincided with his ridiculous press conference. There’s something Freudian there..
-conspiracy of whiners-
Crowley’s prolly voting for Romney, too.
It was a ridiculous way for Rom to approach it, in any case. There’s a weeks-long timeline with multiple players, and he chose to focus on what Obama said in a statement the next day. It was weak, regardless of the fact that Candy Crowley was wrong.
I’ve got to give the GOP credit. They are the best at playing the political game. Most people are still concerned about the economy, yet Benghazi is now the talking point on the right.
It’s amazing, Romney will win this election the exact same way GWB did — politicizing national security. In fact, Romney’s making me wish we had Bush in office.
Andy is unhappy. That’s a good thing.
Romney focused on the next day thing because he was miffed Obama cheap-shot him on his next day activity.
Spot on Larry, that’s exactly how I read that. Romney’s notoriously thin skin caught up to him. BIG time.
These debates, primarily, are theatre and only serve to get voters to pay some attention. By this stage we already know whether or not a challenger has either a grasp of the issues and how to deal with them or the ability to grasp and deal with them. The actual job they’re vying for doesn’t involve score-able debate in any way.
Reagan’s “are you better off” and “I will not make age an issue” debate lines spoke directly to the public about real concerns. Bentson’s “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” slam, on the other hand, gave no insight whatsoever to either candidate’s abilities.
My favourite format was the one Mike Huckabee put on to have Repub candidates one-by-one face questioning by sitting states’ attorneys general. Plenty of time to formulate and answer without interruption, but really hard to avoid and ignore professional interrogators.
“Romney focused on the next day thing because he was miffed Obama cheap-shot him on his next day activity.”
To go out, as quickly as Governor Romney did, and politicize something like that and try to win an election, that day, on that issue by criticizing the CiC was a chicken **** move. Romney knew damn well that Obama was in the Situation Room dealing with an international crisis and his instant reaction is to go on television and say the president is weak and is going on an apology tour?
To me, that showed Romney is not capable of governing. What’s he going to do if he gets elected? Start his 2016 campaign and go on FOX News every day telling people to vote for him?
“Andy is unhappy. That’s a good thing.”
Yes, I’m unhappy that there are still millions of people out of work, looking for a job and wanting to hear a plan for how to get people back to work and you have a douchebag shoving that issue aside (because he has no plan) to tell us that Obama appeases terrorists and will let them bomb us every day.
So Obama came to Washington to change the tone. That he did. A President of the United States has never been so nasty in public. Mr. likable.
I like Obama.
Oh please. Romney was a huge douchebag in the first debate, and Obama and Lehrer let him get away with it. I’m fed up with both of them, but O didn’t have much choice.
Perhaps not his intention, but Romney’s statement sends a clear message overseas that, if he becomes president, USA will no longer cower so easily over phony intimidation. Such show of weakness invites more attacks, not less. Radicals who can so easily kill innocent fellow Muslims are not really much bothered by insults at Mohammed. It’s the widening spread of Western culture and values that they detest so, and why Taliban in Pakistan shot the brave little girl in the head.
Perhaps the president was in the situation room monitoring events when the governor made his statement. As we now know, the president didn’t do anything.
POTUS has intel sources that are other than US assets. At least past presidents enjoyed that courtesy… may not be the case any longer since Obama’s blabber-mouthed NSA still has his job.
“Romney was a huge douchebag in the first debate”
Romney’s a douchebag 24/7.
“And since I’m apparently the only one who pays attention to these things, the fundraising was canceled. He showed up to an event a whole lotta people were already at.”
^^ Thanks joe. I wasn’t aware of the true facts but should have known Romney was lying. .
The best evidence yet that Romney lost the debate last night Fox News is saying the moderator was biased for Obama. The loser always blames the ref.
And Andy has got any smarter since he got that job at the mall running the caramel corn machine.
So if you complain about the moderator, you’ve lost?
Weren’t BOTH sides complaining abou Crowley before the debate (answer: yes). She just happened to live up to the hype from the Republican side.
I suppose we could reverse the statement… those who win or see the result as favorable, don’t complain about debate moderators.
Anyway… according to the folks with the stopwatches, Obama has now spoken more in the two debates, than Romney. A little extra air time, a few extra minutes… but be assured, that’s called “playing it down the middle.”
^ Whambulance chaser.
“Weren’t BOTH sides complaining abou Crowley before the debate”
^^Apples and oranges blue. We both know that we’re talking about post debate comments. Pre debate b*tching is just to set the stage and say ‘I told you she was biased’.
The CW is that only losers b*itch about the moderator after the debate. The Dems complained about Jim Lehrer after the first debate and now Repubs are complaining about Crowley. It’s a tell they think they lost.
“I suppose we could reverse the statement… those who win or see the result as favorable, don’t complain about debate moderators.”
As for the minutes; one side is always going to speak a bit longer than the other. Unless it’s ten minutes or more it doesn’t matter.
Did they count Romney’s sputters, tsks, and eye-rolls? Or how many times he leaned in so close to Obama it looked like he was about to grab his heart and topple over?
I thought Romney won the debate easily, and that Candy did as much good for him (in effect) as harm.
I think that you can say Romney ‘lost’ the debate, but won the war. The first debate negated millions of dollars of ads against him, put Obama’s record back into focus, and essentially restarted the campaign. Romney may not have ‘won’ this one over-all, but he still does well on economic issues, which is what people really care about. As I’ve said, Benghazi will linger and eat away at Obama’s advantage on foreign policy.
When is the next debate, what is its theme, and who will moderate?
Yeah, I know I could GOOGLE it, but I’ve already typed this, and the rest of the class might be appreciative.
Monday October 22, 2012
Topic: Foreign policy
9:00-10:30 p.m. ET
Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida
Moderator: Bob Schieffer CBS
When far left people are happy, that means things were “fair.”
When far right people are happy, that means things were “unfair.”
I get how this game is played. I’m just not interested in playing by your rules.
^^ Blue; That comment makes no sense.
If you work at it a bit you will find it still makes no sense.
I think Candy has staked a place in history, and mot a good one:
I have no idea why Crowley fact-checked herself after the debate. She made the point during that exchange that Obama was telling the truth about using those words that morning, but that he also fiddled with “spontaneous protest” for two weeks. Her attempts to assuage conservative outrage afterword were needless and stupid.
Oh, Candy walked it back because she is afraid of conservatives and is stupid. Bite me, Joe.
Joe is channeling Bill Clinton if you accept the definition of is is the letter of language and not its meaning.
I think Ms. Crowley revisited her facts after that exchange because, trying to be an honourable journalist, she realised that by becoming part of the controversy she inadvertently failed her mission to moderate the debate.
She became “part of the story” because the losing side threw a fit, and the rest of the media played along. Ya know, you don’t have to give the losing whiners credibility on a made-up controversy out of “fairness”.
She became part of the story because she screwed up. Not that I’m mad it her. It wasn’t purposeful.
Yeah, she screwed up and she knew it. It’s not a big deal.
According to the Rightwing Hysteria Machine, it’s the reason Romney lost the debate liberal bias in the tank for Obama boo hoo we’ve been wronged! Shut. UP.
And what is this Rightwing Hysteria Machine and where is it kept? Perhaps in the Vast Rightwing Fellowship Hall or maybe at the Mellonscape League of Wingnuts Bunker. Rumor is it uses the blood of undocumented worker babies as lubricant. I don’t think it’s been fired up since Joe McCarthy died.
I think Crowley probably saved Romney ass by telling Romney Obama had used the word ‘terror’ in his Rose Garden statement. Imagine she says nothing and Romney continues on with his misguided attack that Obama never said the word and was therefore lying. That appeared to where he was headed, when he said ‘it took fourteen days for Obama to tell us it a terrorist attack’ line . And it looked like Obama wasn’t going to bail him out as he imploded.
It really could have been a lot worse. Just sayin’.
As WaPo fact-checker Glenn Kessler explains why the issue is not as cut-and-dried as Crowley claimed:
What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.
Whether it was due to personal bias or incomplete information, Crowley was wrong. She had no business intervening on an ambiguous point, and as a long-time journalist, she should have been more careful.
So who won the debate? Well, today’s Gallup Poll of likely voters shows Romney 52% vs Obama 45% of likely voters. That’s Bararck’s defeat of McCain numbers.