jjamie12 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) Mitt screwed up. Simple as that. He screwed up over semantics (which in the grand scheme of things is nearly irrelevant but when it happens in front of 65 million Americans it has a negative effect) and Obama called him to the mat on it. All the rest that has come out of the conservative universe is just straight up denial. The silly part is, they're in denial about something so insignificant it's making them, and Romney's campaign, look even worse. To me, this is where you go wrong here. The vast majority of people don't give a flying damn about semantics. Everyone understood Romney's point as: "You didn't label this an act of terror until several weeks after it happened and not only that, but you kept blaming a movie." Romney's point wasn't "You didn't specifically say the word terror in an address in the Rose Garden." For most people watching, the argument went like this: Romney: You kept on saying this was the result of the protest of a movie, not an act of terror. Obama: No I didn't, I said it was an act of terror. Romney: No you didn't. Crowley: Yes he did. Obama: Say that again. Crowley: Yes he did. And then almost immediately after the debate, everyone in the world can see that the President and other administration members kept on blaming this on the movie for about two weeks -- which is why this is continuing to be a bad story FOR OBAMA, not Romney. That's why this hasn't worked for the President, and why, arguably, it is a bigger story than it should be. Most people don't give a damn about the 'semantic argument' made -- they care that the President wasn't being truthful in the sense that most people view truthful. This isn't some courtroom where: "Well, technically, I said the words 'act of terror' on 9/12" No one cares. People don't care about whether you could get off in a court case -- they care that what you're inferring you said can be demonstrably proved false BY YOUR OWN WORDS A WEEK LATER! Personally, I don't care about this issue. I think it's really, really stupid. I've also come to the realization that most people don't care what I think is important or not, and that THEY'LL each decide what's important. Candy Crowley blew this up in the President's face by butting in for no good reason. It's clear to everyone who watched the debate what Romney was trying to say -- she just went out and went courtroom lawyer on it instead of letting them duke it out. This would be OVER now if it weren't for her doing something that she should absolutely not have done. Now, it continues to be a giant problem for the President. Edited October 19, 2012 by jjamie12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: THE GREAT GAFFE. The rub for Obama comes, ironically enough, out of Romney’s biggest flub in the debate, the Libya question. That flub kept Romney from winning the evening outright. But Obama’s answer has left him a hostage to fortune. Missed by Romney, missed by the audience, missed by most of the commentariat, it was the biggest gaffe of the entire debate cycle: Substituting unctuousness for argument, Obama declared himself offended by the suggestion that anyone in his administration, including the U.N. ambassador, would “mislead” the country on Libya. This bluster — unchallenged by Romney — helped Obama slither out of the Libya question unscathed. Unfortunately for Obama, there is one more debate — next week, entirely on foreign policy. The burning issue will be Libya and the scandalous parade of fictions told by this administration to explain away the debacle. No one misled? ...............................His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration turned ugly: “People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.” But there was no gathering. There were no people. There was no fray. It was totally quiet outside the facility until terrorists stormed the compound and killed our ambassador and three others. The video? A complete irrelevance. It was a coordinated, sophisticated terror attack, encouraged, if anything, by Osama bin Laden’s successor, giving orders from Pakistan to avenge the death of a Libyan jihadist. And has anybody heard from Mr. Nakoula lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Darn, where is FedEx when you absolutely positively need an Israeli real estate developer overnight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 This talk about the "gaffe" by Romney in the 2nd debate is silly. It will be rectified Monday night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Everyone understood Romney's point as: "You didn't label this an act of terror until several weeks after it happened and not only that, but you kept blaming a movie." Romney's point wasn't "You didn't specifically say the word terror in an address in the Rose Garden." I think you should go watch the clip again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 http://www.realclear...nstitution.html Was just talking about this with a coworker, who's an immigrant from Africa. He made the very valuable point that the US is just about the only place in the world where you ARE allowed to tell the President to shut the !@#$ up and not fear for your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 To me, this is where you go wrong here. The vast majority of people don't give a flying damn about semantics. Everyone understood Romney's point as: "You didn't label this an act of terror until several weeks after it happened and not only that, but you kept blaming a movie." Romney's point wasn't "You didn't specifically say the word terror in an address in the Rose Garden." For most people watching, the argument went like this: Romney: You kept on saying this was the result of the protest of a movie, not an act of terror. Obama: No I didn't, I said it was an act of terror. Romney: No you didn't. Crowley: Yes he did. Obama: Say that again. Crowley: Yes he did. And then almost immediately after the debate, everyone in the world can see that the President and other administration members kept on blaming this on the movie for about two weeks -- which is why this is continuing to be a bad story FOR OBAMA, not Romney. That's why this hasn't worked for the President, and why, arguably, it is a bigger story than it should be. Most people don't give a damn about the 'semantic argument' made -- they care that the President wasn't being truthful in the sense that most people view truthful. This isn't some courtroom where: "Well, technically, I said the words 'act of terror' on 9/12" No one cares. People don't care about whether you could get off in a court case -- they care that what you're inferring you said can be demonstrably proved false BY YOUR OWN WORDS A WEEK LATER! Personally, I don't care about this issue. I think it's really, really stupid. I've also come to the realization that most people don't care what I think is important or not, and that THEY'LL each decide what's important. Candy Crowley blew this up in the President's face by butting in for no good reason. It's clear to everyone who watched the debate what Romney was trying to say -- she just went out and went courtroom lawyer on it instead of letting them duke it out. This would be OVER now if it weren't for her doing something that she should absolutely not have done. Now, it continues to be a giant problem for the President. This is the best analysis of the situation I've heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 The Three Benghazi Timelines We Need Answers About. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Romney will win the fix is in in Ohio with Son Taggs company a subsidiary of Baine owning the machines that will count the votes. Boy it would be great to live in a country were we can have fair elections. We set a great example as worlds greatest democracy when we cant even carry on fair elections and yes both sides are Guilty as hell of fixing it their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Romney will win the fix is in in Ohio with Son Taggs company a subsidiary of Baine owning the machines that will count the votes. Boy it would be great to live in a country were we can have fair elections. We set a great example as worlds greatest democracy when we cant even carry on fair elections and yes both sides are Guilty as hell of fixing it their way. And I thought I was paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 And I thought I was paranoid. You are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 You are Whew. Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. Oh, man, stop messing with me! There was a guy this morning who I swear was following me. It totally freaked me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Oh, man, stop messing with me! There was a guy this morning who I swear was following me. It totally freaked me out. There ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Oh, man, stop messing with me! There was a guy this morning who I swear was following me. It totally freaked me out. No I wasn't. I mean, you are imagining things. Now go put on your tin foil hat and crank out some big screen blockbusters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Whew. Oh, man, stop messing with me! There was a guy this morning who I swear was following me. It totally freaked me out. Look at the bright side---you have an "in" for writing the remake of "A Beautiful Mind". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 No I wasn't. I mean, you are imagining things. Now go put on your tin foil hat and crank out some big screen blockbusters. Right. Right. I'm on it. I swear I'm NOT procrastinating. At all... Look at the bright side---you have an "in" for writing the remake of "A Beautiful Mind". That's funny because it's true. If only I weren't a hack I could totally nail that gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Right. Right. I'm on it. I swear I'm NOT procrastinating. At all... When you make it big, will you remember us??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 When you make it big, will you remember us??? He doesn't have time to make it big. The Mayans have already blasted off from Uranus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts