Well, not a very long public life, but certainly an ignominious one.
Slimy is precisely the word for him. I suspect Daddy would not be very proud of his son. Pathetic.
The exchange over Libya was the moment Romney truly lost.

How do we predict Bob Schieffer will handle what will very clearly be an aggressive Romney in the final meeting? On the one hand, having watching Bob lately I think he is another aging Lehrer who could be pushed around easily. Then again, I've seen him be much tougher than Lehrer in interviews over his entire career.
Speaking of pathetic, the CBC and BBC have better coverage of the election and the issues than the US news outlets.…
Really well written. Thanks.
#5, but they don't vote here, do they?

Anyway, it's so fun reading Paul Constant's steady stream of idiotic material on the election.

After the first debate, he pissed on Democrats who were worried about Obama's terrible performance. Since then, Obama has lost all of his lead over Romney.

After the second debate, he declared Biden the knock-down, drag-out winner, when in fact the polls showed that it was a tie.

Before the third debate, he told everyone not to expect that Obama would win it, which was also wrong. And now he says that Obama won the third debate by as much as Romney won the first debate, which is a total Kool-Aid drinking fantasy.

Poor Paul Constant. Always wrong, but never in doubt.
Have to admit I enjoyed watching Romney slink dejectedly back to his stool after losing every exchange. I almost pitied him. Obama simply blew him away. Mr. Romney you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. "Please proceed" is the new "do you feel lucky, punk?" and the new "let's roll."
go back to fapping over anne coulter, mister g. you're just mad your candidate got his ass kicked.
@9: c'mon, Mister G. does have some points. Paul was convinced that Biden easily won; he was tone deaf to the idea that many peeps wouldn't like Biden's demeanor. etc.
I'm voting for Obama, #9. But I'm not Obama Girl like you and Paul and most of the Stranger's comment section. Chances are that Obama's going to lose narrowly. This has been baked in the cake since the June unemployment numbers were released.

For a short while it looked like Obama might defy post-World War II history that says the challenger wins if the second quarter unemployment rate does anything other than decline. (The rule has worked in 15 of the 16 post-WW2 elections.)

Obama's handlers put together a superb attack strategy, and the Democratic Convention was the slickest affair since the one that nominated Clinton in 1992. But Obama threw it all away with his lackluster campaign after the Convention, and especially with his disastrous performance in the first debate.

The v-p debate kept Obama's fingernails on the ledge, but the second presidential debate will not be enough to rescue him. Yes, he won it, but it was not even close to the knockout blow he needed.

Yup, I don't drink the Kool-Aid like the Obama Girl. I don't faint in his presence, or in the afterglow, like you do. I want him to win, and I will vote for him, but I think Obama is going to lose by a whisker. And if he loses, I sure as hell hope he blames the right guy, which will be the one he sees staring back in the mirror.
It wasn't the Biden smackdown of last week, but it was a smackdown of a sort, and a more thorough one, I think, than the one from the first debate, although it won't have the same effect. (That four-point momentum switch from one single night will go down in history.)

Unlike Obama in the first debate, Romney had a couple cringing moments in this one. That Crowley fact check should be an instant classic, a highlight of what has been a very entertaining campaign year. Then there's Romney repeatedly pushing Obama about his pension plan (Romney's only passionate about finances), only to get his face dropped on the mat with a simple joke. If it was Obama making these sorts of mistakes, they'd get played in the networks for the next few days and conservatives would be declaring "It's over!"

Obama had some good punches in there as well. And as long as I'm reducing a presidential race to a sports metaphor, I'll also add that it seemed, early on, like an actual boxing match would break out. Boy, this was a memorable debate. Combine it with the previous two and we can say that the last debate will have a lot to live up to.

The questions were generally quite good, I thought, including the gun-control one, which was so left-field. However, I do think the "what have you done for me" question was a lame setup for Obama. Also, I thought his rambling foray into education (or something) during the gun-control question was a cheap ploy to get a point in and woefully, egregiously past the time limit. Candy Crowley should definitely had cut him off not not let him run roughshod over her and the rules. That was Obama's weakest moment, IMO.

But overall, he shined, and Romney admirably managed to keep it together, but that was about it for him. Obama thoroughly outdebated him. Things can't be happy at the Romney camp tonight.
Much credit goes to Cindy Crowley for disarming the patened "Romney Hard Sell" debate strategy (bullying interjections, unremitting deception), with all the firm vigor of a junior high teacher taking the know-it-all down a peg. Obama was his old self -- as cool as a glass of water, except of course that wonderful, low boil in his Libya response. Obama has gravitas, and it's a shame he doesn't use it more often (I think America is at a place where a black man in a position of power can be angry on our behalf without scaring grandma re: Samuel Jackson's entire career).

What impressed me most of all, and here I disagree with Paul, is that Romney was on his game -- his answers weren't bad from the perspective of an fence-sitting voter in a Rust Belt state. He was a little awkward in trying to bring his winning strategy to a very different arena, but near the end he was in good form. His answer to the final question (perhaps the best encapsulation of not just this election but the opposing world views of our two Americas), was obviously heartfelt and winning. But then it was Obama's turn. You didn't hear about 47% during the first debate, or through the second debate. He'd tucked that silver bullet in his pocket and managed to avoid using it right up until the moment of maximum effect, weaving it into an impassioned, cogent defense of government that made liberalism and progressivisim seem far more American than any of the Bible-waving Mitt Romney had done. It was the entire contrast between the two men and their two campaigns, encapsulated. Romney throwing the best market-tested, consultant-coiffed, ferociously rehearsed lines he has. Obama answering at the perfect moment with the volley that everyone, *everyone* had been gnashing their teeth for him to deliver earlier. "Don't fire until you see the whites in their eyes." William Prescott, eat your heart out.
On the way home from the debate party, I listened to conservative AM radio.

After the first debate, they were jubilant, gleefully recounting the ass kicking Obama had just received.

After this one, they were petulant, whining about Obama evading this question or that, and complaining that Americans care more about debate performance than the dire foreign-policy failures of the Onama administration.

I call that a win.
@11 Wait, what? I always assumed, based on all of your comments to this point, that "Mister G" stood for "Mr. Gay Dude For Romney."

Maybe you're not the same person, but "voting for Obama?" Bullshit. Just another GOP shill trolling this blog during election season. Happened before, happening now, will happen again. Come November 7th, you'll be gone.
@11: the September job report put unemployment at a 44-month low, with record gains in manufacturing - how is that not second quarter job growth? Though I agree that The Stranger's breathlessly partisan cheerleading leaves a bad taste. Not a word from Paul about the administration railroading the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade act behind closed doors. Not a fucking whisper about drone-strikes or domestic surveillance.
#15, I'm not gay dude for Romney. I'm not going to tell you who I am, but if I did do that, you'd be floored by the magnitude of my donations to Democrats. The problem is: I'm a grizzled veteran of many a disappointment, and at this late date I consider it weakness of the highest order to ether a) Lie to yourself about your candidate(s), b) Whine about the lying meanie on the other side, or c) Bitch about how Fox News, or the polls, or the insufficiently lefty Seattle Times or New York Times is at fault.

The Democratic Party long ago put its collective testicles in a blind trust. Obama's attacks on Romney between about Memorial Day and the Convention gave me cause to hope that someone had finally found the trust documents and ripped them up, but then Obama pulled a Kerry after the Convention and went to sleep.

And that first debate will, or at least should, go into the history books as political malfeasance of the highest order. No one forced Obama to stand there and not defend himself while Mitt Romney beat the living shit out of him. I don't have a fuck of a lot of respect for weaklings, idiots, or cheerleaders, especially when they're in my own party.

If you want to think I'm a Republican, go right the fuck ahead and think so. But, like Paul Constant's laughable campaign coverage, you'll be as wrong as it gets.
#16, you fuckwit, September isn't in the second quarter. Can't you even read a fucking calendar? I guess not. The first quarter is January through March. The second quarter is April through June. The third quarter is July through September. The fourth quarter is October through December.

Any change in the unemployment rate takes several months to be felt in the psychology of Main Street. If the first quarter is good (like it was this year), that's too early for the political season. If the third quarter is good (like it might have been this year -- pending revisions), that's too late for the political season.

Here are the monthly unemployment numbers all the way back to the beginning of 1948. They cover 17 presidential election cycles, including this one. In 15 of the 16 elections since World War II, the challenger won if the unemployment rate didn't decline in the second quarter.

In 1960, 1968, 1976, and 2000, the unemployment rate was flat in the second quarter. Each of those elections was razor close in the popular vote. Two of them (1960 and 2000) were decided by election fraud. This year, the second quarter unemployment rate began at 8.2% and ended at 8.2%.

You don't like it, and neither do I, but it's factual. The only way Obama could win would be if he ran a much better campaign than Romney. Which his handlers gave him all the way through the Convention. And then he blew it, big time.
@18 Hah - I'll grant the inability to read the calendar, but you are a petty, acerbic little fuck aren't you?
@15 nah I've read Mister G.'s comments he's just a curmudgeon. GDfR suffers from what Marx termed a "false sense of class consciousness", there is a difference.

Unless GDfR is really Trig or Trag or Scag or whatever the Romney's call their kids.


The moment of the night for me was the audience spontaneously applauding Candy calling bullshit on Romney during the Libya exchange. Oh Fox n Friends will cry through the weekend about that, but that issue died right then.
I got a binder, got a binder full of women, oh, woaah oh
@18 Dude, you've identified a pattern; a correlation. It's nor a rule and it's not inevitable. Chill.

Here's another observation to consider: no sitting black president has ever won a second term. Ever. (sorry, I have no handy chart)

By your own admission, you predict Obama would be an exception to your 2nd qtr predictor, if only woulda/coulda/shoulda blah blah blah.

I predict this: You'll be voting for a winner.

How apt for a Mormon haircutting bishop to have a binder full of women.

And there's a page!
Oh my. Boston reporter calling bullshit on Romney's claim about those binders.…
In my completely biased opinion, Romney got pummeled, mostly by himself, on the one issue for which he had a clear upper hand: the Libya attack.

He had a chance to stick it to the president about the security coverage (although as it turns out, the request for more security coverage was about extending the hours of guards working the embassy in Tripoli, not the compound in Benghazi, but most viewers wouldn't understand that even if someone explained it point-blank). Instead, he tried to score a point about whether Obama called them terrorists or not in his initial remarks (a stupid point of debate if you ask me) and he obliterated by it.

I suspect Romney, or at least the humans who surround and nourish him, will be hearing the words "Please proceed, governor" echoing throughout tortured dreams tonight.
#22, I hope so. Oddly enough, I'm not a clairvoyant, any implied claims notwithstanding. If there was no logic to the correlation, then it'd be idle chance, like someone who wins 15 of 16 roulette spins. But I think there's more to it than that. Not only did it work 15 of 16 times, but every flat second quarter predicted a razor close election. This one will be the fifth of five.

Obama ought to be on quite solid ground in the foreign policy debate, so you never know. And he hit a line drive triple when the Mittster went after him on Libya. He could've been even tougher, but a line-drive triple is nothing to sniff at. Still, all in all, I think Romney's the likely winner. He might be a complete shyster, etc., but the fact is that the economy sucks, largely because Obama's stimulus was too timid.
Also, #22, it helps a whole lot that the courts have kept the Republicans from stealing Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, at least in the blatant way they desired.
I hope everyone watches this extremely enlightening video segment from Tuesday's episode of Democracy Now!:

Glenn Greenwald: Presidential Debates Highlight "Faux Objectivity" of Mainstream Journalists

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, when you listen to these candidates giving their responses, third-party candidates, your thoughts?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I think you see exactly why it is that those candidates have been excluded. And I think, actually, what you’re doing in having these debates in a way that includes them is really quite innovative and important and really brilliant, because it illustrates two things. Number one is, when you have these candidates on the stage who are credible, who, as George said, represent parties who have ballot access and have been funded and recognized by lots of people, what it does is it illustrates just how mythological this idea is that the Democrats and Republicans are universes apart, that in reality they share all kinds of policy premises and, most importantly, serve exactly the same interests. Only by excluding those candidates and having the two parties focus on the tiny differences that they have and vociferously fight about them can this mythology be maintained that we have massive and real choice in this country.

The other aspect of it is, is that if you have, for example, Gary Johnson, who is the Libertarian Party candidate, and even a couple of other candidates on the right, who oftentimes are far more—far greater advocates of what progressives have long claimed to be their values—antiwar, pro-civil liberties, anti-harsh penal policies, anti-drug war—what then begins to happen, as well, is that the ideological and partisan spectrum begins to blur a great deal. Loyalties break down. Cultural identities can be subverted. And that, more than anything, is what the two parties do not want. They want both of their—their followers to think that the only way that these views can be represented is by clinging to either one of the two political parties. And introducing these third parties into the debate shows that actually the ideological spectrum is far less rigid and linear than these two parties insist on perpetuating. And that’s why they’re joined together at the hip and have a common interest in keeping this process as it is and why this collusion exists so smoothly, as George described, because they both want to keep these candidates out for the same reasons.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Glenn Greenwald, you’ve also talked about the fact that the vast majority of the most consequential issues facing the United States today will not be addressed during this debate process. Can you talk about some of those issues that will be and have been excluded?

GLENN GREENWALD: Oh, yes. I mean, the list of consequential issues that will be completely ignored by these debates because the two parties agree on them is vastly longer than the list of issues that they disagree on and will be talked about. Obviously, if you look at foreign policy, you see President Obama engaging in endless war; attacking various countries with drone, killing innocent people; claiming the right to assassinate American citizens without a whiff of transparency or due process; waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers in the United States here at home, prosecuting more than all previous presidents combined; the United States’s vast, massive penal state, where we imprison more of our fellow citizens than all other country—than any other country in the world. We have a policy of punishing people for drug usage that is racist in both its application and design, putting huge numbers of minorities into prison for no good reason. There is massive poverty in the United States, a huge and exploding income gap in between the rich and the poor, greatest in many decades. None of these issues will be remotely addressed, because there’s nothing for the two parties to say on them other than the fact that "we agree." And it’s by excluding those issues, some of the most consequential policy debates that the United States faces, including things like union rights and climate change—the list goes on—only by ignoring them can this myth be maintained that the two parties have some vastly different philosophical approach. And it’s the inclusion of third-party candidates, who would insist on talking about those, that would give the lie to this mythology.
The above link is broken, here is the correct address of the video:…
Paul Constant is really blossoming into a truly cartoonish characterization of a phony liberal pundit. He's like the Glen Beck of the left. Even though President Douche and Mr. Turd Sandwich both present the same fundamental economic and foreign policy goals, which are, of course, not their goals but those of the global elite, Constant's constant commitment to delusion is at least admirable.

I hope Romney does win, just so we can all be on the same page that open war against Iran is a bad thing under a Romney administration, instead of breathlessly cheerleading world war three under Obama.

But we have to vote for one of them right?! Lesser of two evils and all. Especially because it's hard to vote for a third party when they're behind bars.…

Please proceed, governor.....proceed directly to your teams of lawyers, accountants, auto elevator operators & horse not pass GO, do not collect a single vote from any undecideds.
Spindles, clearly the tin foil is leeching into your brain. Shouldn't you be protesting a vaccination somewhere? If you're quick, you and Jenny McCarthy can stop some child from being protected from the whooping cough! Hurry! Watch out for chemtrails, good soldier!
Sick 'em, FonsieScheme! How dare Spindles defy conformity and challenge Democratic party dogma like that?!

Why, he must be craaaaaaaazy!!

(It's a whole lot easier to disregard his arguments if we label him a "nutjob", isn't it?)
Romney certainly did not reverse himself on contraception—he weaseled it. "Every woman deserves access to contraception" says absolutely nothing about whether all licensed insurance providers (whether employer-supported or privately purchased) should be required to cover it; that all FDA-approved forms be available; that it be treated as fully covered or with reasonable co-pays; that doctors be required to prescribe it when requested; that pharmacists be required to fill prescriptions; that one-stop providers like Planned Parenthood not be hamstrung or forced to close.

He left himself so much room he might as well not have said anything at all. The American Taliban surely cheered what he did say behind closed doors.
I could never imagine a Mitt presidential portrait. What a nightmare.
Mr. Romney blew it on September 11 when he tried to score political points on a human and American tragedy. He got slapped bad for it. But apparently he didn't learn from the experience. Last night he had the chance to appear presidential on the topic and say that he did not want to try to score points on it. He would have rocked it.

But that's not what he did. He blew it again. He once again tried to score political points on American deaths. Not only did it look bad again, but it's clear that he did not learn from his earlier mistake.
I just can't believe Romney is still trying to ride on the backs of dead American diplomats into the White House. Gleefully reveling in dead Americans because it may help his own career. I was disgusted, I can only imagine how Obama felt.

Shameful regardless of who does it.

Proceed, governor.
Mr. G is absolutely correct in all of his comments. Although I think Obama will squeak it out in the end. Because Romney is such a twat.

Mr. G is Bill Gates everybody. Read between the lines!
No one is talking about the soft-ball questions that the candidates were given?

Obama clearly won the debate and Romney looked like a slimy piece of shit but don't worry gang. Wall Street is always the big winner in November. And they are just iching to get another one of the "too big to fail" bank attorneys on the supreme court. I mean Obama got them one already. I'm sure he'll give them a second one.
@35 Why would he need another one? He already made Massachusetts pay for one giant oil.
@40 What, you were expecting gotchas?

As for Obama saving the 47% thing for his closing, it's like Romney WANTED him to do it, what with his "100%" comment in his closing statement. He really grooved that one right down the middle for Obama to smack around.

And frankly, unless some of these here slog commenters are from a toss-up state, none of what we think matters. Obama wins Washington; the only question is by how much (though firing up the base like this debate could do may provide a down-ballot bounce for important local elections, of course!).
This is fallacious on its face. What about Spindles' statement talking about Paul's (and a majority of Slog's) blind party loyalty or Nobel Peace Prize God Emperor's murders of innocent American born teenagers is in any way analogous to his admittedly laughable stance on vaccines? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Espouse the benefits of science all you want. Just fucking remember Logic 101 every once in awhile.

Paul is either just really naive and uninformed as Mr. G so aptly states, or he's perpetrating a multi-year satire of "liberal" tribalism of epic proportions. I want to believe the latter. I really do. Oh, and Mitt was an absolute douche, Obama totally visionless (e.g. "Bush didn't want vouchers!" Huh?) but that's not really a departure from the previously known realities.

We can certainly reflect more on the debates after the election, but I've got a strong suspicion that team Obama planned to take a loss at the first debate and come out strong in the last 3. I don't think they wanted to tank like they ended up doing, but, when you think about it, is there any way that Obama could have won?

Romney isn't Rick Perry--he's a half competent politician and there wasn't going to be an oops moment. His campaign was at the bottom of a death spiral and any half way decent performance would be considered an improvement. It was also the first time he got to be on stage and on equal footing with the president, which traditionally elevates the candidate. And the media is the one who ultimately calls the winners and losers--choosing which clips get wide airing and which headlines the less-interested masses get to read--and frankly the media has a conflict of interest in the sense that they want it to be a horse race so they can get bigger viewership and more advertising money from their election coverage and ad sales, etc.

IF Obama had won the first debate, the democratic base, which is notoriously less reliable than the republican core, would have become increasingly complacent about a sure victory. I think this would have been improbable--at best Obama could have earned a draw with Romney given the forces that were against him that I outlined above. A draw wouldn't have done Obama many favors either, since you'd still have to deal to a certain degree with a complacency in the base and it probably would have made successive debates harder to win. If Obama would have brought his A game, Romney would know it going into the last two debates and the media would expect it as the baseline performance and there'd be no points to score.

Let Romney win, learn his strategy (I don't think anyone expected him to run away from his own record and lie to the degree that he did), and come back strong in the later debates. Did they mean to completely bomb? No. But finishing strong is more important than starting strong, and the wind seems to be behind Obama again.
Obama wins when he:

1. Lets Romney explain what he really believes: "I'd like to hire more women, but someone told me that moms can't stay at work until 8 because they need to get home and make dinner for their families"

2. Directly challenges Romney on style issues: "A president does not play politics with national security"

3. Reminds people who Romney is: "My pension isn't as big as yours"

Obama flat out loses when he

1. tries to explain the complex world to a simple audience: "Unemployment and growth for the previous 31 months"

2. tries to attack Romney on Romney's previous statements: "Romney suggested we let the auto industry go through bankruptcy"

3. tries to point out the clear differences between any of their major policy points: "We've tried top-down growth and it doesn't work. You can't produce a deficit-neutral budget while cutting everyone's taxes without removing the mortgage interest deduction."

Obama needs to let Romney lose this election. He certainly isn't winning this election on his merits alone.

This debate "victory" is only a victory until the next debate or until someone releases the next tape of Romney saying something retarded / offensive. I know the internet is abuzz over "binders filled with women". This will have as much effect as Big Bird had after the last debate: Almost none.
@7 - "#5, but they don't vote here, do they?"

Now why do you sound gleeful about American's being poorly informed about their own electoral choices?
Mr. Obama LIED about Benghazi, and it’s a lie that’s going to catch up with him (if the press does its job at all). He did NOT call the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens an “act of terror” on 9/12/12 as he claimed last night and anyone who has been following the Benghazi cover-up knows it.

On 9/12/12 he called the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi” and an “outrageous and shocking attack” and referred to the attackers as “killers”. He then went on to allude to the YouTube video as the “justification” (cause) of the attack saying “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence” and continued on to refer to the attack as “brutal acts” by “attackers”. He then eulogized Ambassador Stevens and then reflected on the anniversary of 9/11/01 and eulogized the victims of that attack, and the soldiers lost in its aftermath, and in conjunction with those reflections said “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” (referring back to his earlier statement that “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others “ before pivoting back to 9/12/12 by saying “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.” He then, again, referred to the perpetrators of the attack as “attackers”.

So, to recap, he called the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi,” an “outrageous and shocking attack,” “brutal acts,” and a “terrible act” and called its perpetrators “killers” and “attackers” but never, and nowhere, did he call the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens “act of terror” (as he claimed last night) or refer to its perpetrators as “terrorists”. HE LIED AND CANDY COVERED FOR HIM BY REPEATING HIS LIE.

The transcript of the speech can be found here:…

I am sure it’s unnecessary at this time for me to recap the many statements made after 9/12/12 by the Ambassador to UN and the President where they both tied the attack directly to the YouTube video and a fictional mob of protesters or the multiple times the President and his Press Secretary were asked directly if the Benghazi massacre and assassination of Ambassador Stevens was an act of terror and they refused to call it such.
Shorter Mr. G:

@47 Your argument would be pedantic at best, if it wasn't for the fact that a text search of the link _you_ provided shows he did actually utter the words "acts of terror".
Yes... In reference to 9/11/01. Not 9/11/12.
Context counts.
@47, 50, no fucking duh context counts, and that's why your inability (refusal?) to SEE the context is funny/annoying. Read it again, but slowly. Obama's remarks LIKEN the Libya attack and 9/11 before saying "no acts of terror can shake the resolve of this great nation". It couldn't be plainer to anyone not blinded by their own agenda - you and Romney, clearly - the context is why it ONLY can be taken to read "no acts of terror such as 9/11 and now Libya".

If this were written by anybody but Obama you'd have no trouble at all getting it. Check yourself.
The idea that Obama purposely lost the first debate is ludicrous. No one purposely loses anything in an election campaign.
Considering how much discussion there is about women using or not using contraception, it's interesting that there's no discussion about banning condoms. Apparently contraception for men is not controversial.
#53, it's never been about women using contraception. It's been about Obamacare requiring insurance to pay for women's birth control bills. After all, insurance doesn't pay for a pack of Trojans, so if I were you I wouldn't waddle down that particular path.

Spindles is a conspiracy theorist; ergo, anything he says deserves to be laughed at, regardless of the content.
That's the best post title I've read all day. HILARIOUS! And so true.

After this is all over, The Bot can get treatment for his multiple personalities.

You can get a tax break for buying condoms. Or didn't you know that? Oh right, you're an astroturfing ignoramus. I forgot.
@54: Condoms are not maintenence medication. Also birth control pills are used by many women for medicinal purposes, not contraception.

Decent healthcare should pay for medicine, don't you think?

Furthermore, low birth rates and women being able to plan their families leads to greater economic prosperity for all Americans. It helps everyone, it is a great program.
If he believed then that it was an act of terror, why did he call the perpetrators "killers" and "attackers" instead of terrorists?

Why did he refuse to call it an act of terror on The View and Letterman?

Why didn't he label it as such in his UN speech?

I call bullshit.
@54 - Agreed that Romney didn't lie about his position on birth control, since all he talked about was access. A weasely statement, though, since the legality of birth control was not the topic.

Recall that Romney supported the Blunt amendment, which said that any employer can refuse any insurance benefit due to any moral objection. Pregnant and unmarried? No maternity coverage for you.

Obama missed an opportunity there.
@54- Insurance paid for my vasectomy.
@54 - Insurance doesn't pay for any over the counter medication that I'm aware of. If condoms were obtained by prescription, I'm sure they would be covered by most insurance just like viagra is.
Um, #48, Romney is now ahead by 6 points in the Gallup daily tracking poll. How much bigger do you want his lead to get before anyone becomes a "concern troll," whatever that is?
#57, you'd have to buy a whole lot of rubbers before you qualified for the tax break, given the medical deduction limits. And even then, they'd have to be by prescription. When was the last time a doctor prescribed condoms?
@59, if you're going to switch your objection from "he never called it terror" to "he didn't call it terror every time he spoke of it", I'm fine with that.
My objection is that (contrary to what Mr. Obama said last night) he did not call it an “act of terror” in the rose garden on 9/12/12. If he had, don’t you think someone somewhere would have reported such a statement?

Where’s the headline from 9/13/12 saying “Obama: ‘Ambassador killed in terrorist attack’” or anything in that vein?

Please point to any article anywhere on 9/12 or 9/13 that says he called it an act of terror in his speech on 9/12. Surly the Stranger would have mentioned such a thing…

Hell, I called it an act of terror in slog comments on October 10th and got shouted down for doing so...

Obama either lied last night, or he’s an abject failure at communicating basic facts.
@ Mister G, you're the most full of shit commenter I've ever seen on Slog. A big Democratic donor? Who hates progressives? What. Utter. Bullshit. At least most cons who come on here don't try to lie about their true political leanings.

Here's a link explaining what a concern troll is.
@ 66, you used to be an interesting foil here on Slog (more than I could ever say about the likes of Loveschild, Seattleblues, or Mister G), but you've fallen down to their level lately.

Here's what a google search for the term "Libya attack" turned up near the top of the page:…

There is no honest way to dispute the meaning of this. At best, it would be hair splitting; but coming from someone with your demonstrated intelligence, it would definitely be disingenuous.
Again, I'll change my tune if you can cite a published article run in any major publication on 9/12 or 9/13 (or hell, even 9/14) that states that the POTUS called the attack a terrorist act in his rose garden speech.
I'll do that only if you tell me that you honestly, in your heart, believe that CNN is lying now.

They say it was reported then, and would surely be taking a huge risk with no reward by lying about that.

So I'll say it again. You tell me that you honestly, in your heart, believe CNN is lying when they say that that's what Obama said.
@ 69, whoops, you almost got me.

I need another requirement. Why does it matter that the article say that? Does that change what he actually said in the Rose Garden?

Here's a story with the transcript. The context makes it clear that he was speaking about the attacks when he mentions "acts of terror."…
This "act of terror" meme is going off with conservatives.

href="" rel="nofollow"

Is "act of terror" the next "show me your birth certificate"?
#68, I don't "hate" anyone, especially progressives. But I disdain Seattle's "progressives," who are anything but progressive. The "progressives" here never met a California billionaire they didn't love, or a developer they didn't love. It's all fakery with the Seattle "progressives."
"A big Democratic donor? Who hates progressives? What. Utter. Bullshit."

So do you think Goldman Sachs loves them some "progressives?"
#68, by the definitions listed in your link, I am not a so-called "concern troll." You can (and will) call me that, and you'll continue to be wrong.
@71 & 71
They are reading that speech like evangelicals read the bible looking for “da gay,” but they’re looking for anything to hang Obama’s (and now their girl Candy’s) lying hat on.

It simply defies reason to say that on 9/12 the POTUS said any version of “our ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack” and no one reported that he said it.

It’s made even more impossible for a reasonable person to believe when one recalls how many times after that speech the administration said it was a mob, angry at a YouTube video, that got out of control. And how many times, when pressed directly on whether it was an act of terrorism, the POTUS refused to confirm that it was.

(Hell, even Candy said “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that” as part of her “fact checking” service.)

I find it very easy to believe that Obama may have gone back and looked at that speech and decided that he could convince enough people that that’s what he meant after the fact when his feeble cover up story (it was a mob, angry at a YouTube video, that got out of control) began to disintegrate.

In order to buy that the administration’s position on 9/12 was that it was an act of terror, we have to ignore all their spin about the mob (that never existed) and the complete lack of contemporaneous reporting on Obama’s supposed statement on 9/12.

It’s completely implausible.
#76, really: No one outside of the Fox-o-sphere gives a shit. Honest.
@ 76, at best, you're splitting hairs. At the VERY best.

Read the transcript at the link I provided. No, he doesn't use phrasing that you want him to use. BUT.... he doesn't have to. The words he chose say what they say, and denials from you and the other deranged righties will not change that in the least.

The issue is ONLY this: Did Obama reference the attack on the consulate in Libya as an act of terror in his 9/12 Rose Garden remarks? The answer is "yes."

You want to continue to dispute that? Then parse the transcript, along with the actual remarks at last night's debate. Otherwise, this is a settled matter.
@ 74, is Goldman Sachs an individual? Hey, do you think THAT is who "Mister G" is? Mister Goldman Sachs?
No but there's plenty of Dem donors and Dems like you who hate "progressives." You calling someone else full of shit in that regard is really a pot meet kettle moment.
@ 80, why would a progressive like me hate progressives? That makes no sense at all. Typical dirac.
@81 "Typical dirac." Minimize me and derail however you like but I've observed you more than once hippy punching for the Party for over a year. It's OK, but don't be a fucking hypocrite.
@ 82, taking splitters to task is not "hippie punching." Neither is calling out idealists who won't get their heads out of the clouds long enough to do anything effective. But you're welcome to find an instance where I "hippie punched." Good luck - you're going to need it.
#79, I wish.
#83, what are "splitters" and what is "hippie punching?"
Back to my original point, you're the one who implied that big Dem donor == "progressive", which is LAUGHABLE.

I don't need to prove anything. It's been made clear for over a year as I said especially in the midst of either-or fallacies and defenses of the Party you predictably regurgitate. And these are arguments and labels purported by supposed "liberal" purveyors of logic and science. E.g. idealists, purists, non-realists, I've heard all this bullshit before from you and the other Party whores here. Anyone out of lockstep of the highly rationalized frame? Time to call them con. Anyone want to be principled in the face of continued Democratic lies? Time to call them a an idealist. And we're supposed to believe that's not a form a lazy purism?
@86 "an idealist" "of lazy purism" but whatevs.
Now, now boys. You're both pretty.
They're a pair of hippie-punching splitters, that's for sure.
this is so fucking delicious.....

forget the news reports.

scroll back to the fateful day, and those after, on Slog.

Slog was all "oh, those creep fundamentalists and their video...."

The troll told you THAT DAY it was a PrePlanned Terrorist Assault™
but the Girls were all "No No- it was a riot...."

now you are gnawing each others raisin-sized balls off
trying to prove that Obama said it was terrorism....

so. fucking. delicious.
@ 88, awww.

@ 86, if you're going to accuse me of doing something, put up or shut up. I'll take this to mean that you can't put up.
@47, etc. "and it’s a lie that’s going to catch up with him"

I already wrote what I think about your argument #49, but I am curious about your assertion of effects. To what effect could this catch up to Obama and if you're right, how will we be able to tell?

Romney has called this an attack on our embassy repeatedly; should that be considered more or less potentially damaging?
To me Romney looked and sounded exactly the same in this debate as he did in the first debate. Same stammering, overtalking, butting in, smirking, all the same. Only thing has changed is this time, he had some opposition from Obama and the moderator. Last time was basically a monologue. This time, it was a debate. His performance was exactlly the same.
@86 - I feel you're a naive idealist if for no only reason than you implying that Matt isn't a lefty. You do realize that nearly half of the country is going to vote for Romney just because, right? That part of the country would definitely vew him as a liberal. You realize this group is often the majority opinion too, often with disastrous results, yes?

You've constructed a lovely supporting narrative, but in the end you'd rather see the world in flames because humanity isn't as progressive as you are.
@94, At most, ~30% of the country will vote for Romney, i.e. the fundies, the cynics and the clueless who think he looks presidential. Can you cite one major issue about which a large majority of the public isn't progressive?
@95 - I lol'd.
@96, I didn't imagine that ~1/4 of US public opinion setting the global agenda for much of the last 40 years would be so funny. Perhaps you should reconsider who is naive.
#95, at most, about 30% of the country voted for Obama in 2008.
Oops, #95, I take that back. Obama got 69.5 million votes in 2008. The U.S. population was 304 million. Since "progressives" don't believe in arithmetic when the results don't go their way, I took the liberty of doing the calculation: 22.9% of the population voted for Obama in 2008. If 30% of the population were to vote for Romney this time around, it would be a landslide of historic proportions, you brain-addled, Kool-Aid guzzling moron.
@99, Children don't vote in the reality based world so Obama got slightly more than 30% of the voting age population and Romney can only win if turnout is less than in 2008 (which explains why voter suppression is the major strategy of reactionaries). My statement @95 concerned both turnout and the progressive stance of the US public as seen in poll on pretty much every single major issue, i.e. 25-30% of the public sets policy, yet ~60% of the US pop wants progressive outcomes.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.