90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Debate; Bomb Plot; Felix Jumps

An in-your-face debate, a bomb plot at the Fed, Lance Armstrong steps aside.

Bangladeshi Quazi Ahsanullah displays a photograph of his son Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis as he weeps in his home in the Jatrabari neighborhood in north Dhaka, Bangladesh, Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012. The FBI arrested 21-year-old Nafis on Wednesday after he tried to detonate a fake 1,000-pound (454-kilogram) car bomb, according to a criminal complaint. His family said Thursday that Nafis was incapable of such actions. (AP)

Bangladeshi Quazi Ahsanullah displays a photograph of his son Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis as he weeps in his home in the Jatrabari neighborhood in north Dhaka, Bangladesh, Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012. The FBI arrested 21-year-old Nafis on Wednesday after he tried to detonate a fake 1,000-pound (454-kilogram) car bomb, according to a criminal complaint. His family said Thursday that Nafis was incapable of such actions. (AP)

Tough debate and a blessed respite of humor in late campaign season this week. White tie jokes and world wrestling slams. The president scratches back some ground in the town hall. Mitt Romney pounds on big promises and fear of flailing. Tax plans, math, Benghazi, and binders full of women all have their day.

In New York, a hapless plot, we’re told, to bomb the Fed. In the Boy Scout files, tales of abuse. From the edge of space, a jump to Earth.

This hour, On Point: our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Major Garrett, White House correspondent for National Journal.

Lisa Lerer, reporter for Bloomberg News.

Jack BeattyOn Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

Daily Beast “President Obama brought up Planned Parenthood three separate times at Tuesday’s town hall debate. It was an appeal aimed directly at a key part of his base: If he is reelected, it will be because of the Single Nation.”

The Washington Post “In the days after the November election, the tables will be turned: Taxes are scheduled torise dramatically in January for people at all income levels, and Republicans will be unable to stop those automatic increases alone.”

Foreign Policy “If the Treasury finds that manipulation is taken place, the law requires them to “take action to initiate negotiations … for the purpose of ensuring that such countries regularly and promptly adjust the rate of exchange.” As a number of experts have pointed out, the United States and China already are in negotiations over China’s exchange rate, so it’s not clear what the label would actually change.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Michiganjf

    While Republicans remain oblivious or in willful denial as to the stupidity and absurdity of Romney’s great “plan” to fix the economy, the rest of America hasn’t forgotten Romney’s “big idea” put forward in his infamous 47% speech:

    Quote:

    “It depends, of course, which markets you’re talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is, if we win on November 6th there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back, and we’ll see—without actually doing anything—we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.”

    “WITHOUT ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING!!!!”

    Just another “poorly worded,” but exceptional idea, like all of Romney’s other brain-dead gaffes?

    Nope, this is the best the idiot and his brilliant running mate can come up with… next to another HUGE tax cut for the wealthiest one percent, of course! Oh… and eliminating several deductions which are depended on (mainly) by the middle-class!

    … and don’t miss the broader point Romney is making here:

    that capital markets and “job creators” have been holding Americans hostage for years simply to defy President Obama.

    … it’s dispicable that Romney would think this, and even MORE DISPICABLE if there’s any grain of truth to it!

    It’s bad enough Republicans in Congress have “held Americans hostage” simply to defy the President… is business that shallow and contemptible as well?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Stick to Big Bird and Binders; it is a better strategy.

      • Michiganjf

        Why stick to any one thing, when Romney provides us all with so many moronic statements and so much fodder to use against him?

        • JGC

          If Romney is elected, the other happy segment of American society (after the Severely Conservative contingent) will be its long-suffering comedians and cartoonists.  It has been a long, dry season with Obama at the helm these past 3 1/2 years. He is too considered and too thoughtful and just has not given them enough working material.  But with a Romney presidency, they will be guaranteed a “Big Bird” or “Binders full of women” or “my wife’s two Cadillacs” or “some of my best friends own Nascar teams” comments every 3.2 days.
          Goldmine.  Underemployed Comedians for Romney 2012! Let’s roll!

          • StilllHere

            Or is everyone afraid of being called a racist?

        • Don_B1

          @michiganjf:disqus 
          @disqus_kLh54B1nUd:disqus 
          @1Brett1:disqus 
          @MadMarkTheCodeWarrior:disqus 
          @anamaria23:disqus 

          Michiganjf, you are so right in your first post above.

          The whole thing with Romney’s empty claims of his plans to “fix” the economy is here:

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/opinion/krugman-snow-job-on-jobs.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

          where anyone except the ideologues on the radical right will see the problem with the Romney plan(s) for taxation and job creation.

      • JGC

        Speaking of strategery, on my drive north today I got to hear plenty of diatribes and plots to rival the “grassy knoll” about Libya  from Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh, etc… so whatever happened to Jobs Jobs Jobs and the Economy? 

        I wonder if Crew Mittens is compiling that “Binder full o’ Hispanics” that they wish they had gotten around to earlier in the voting season….  

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          You think that the administration has been forthright in their Libya communication?

          They can’t hide behind ‘executive privilege’ on this one.

          • JGC

            They have been sorting out the intelligence, even though everyone demands an answer yesterday.  Remember how Kennedy had time to discuss the impinging Cuban missile crisis with his staff and with Eisenhower to mull his path that October 50 years ago?  Now here we are working on a hyper-immediate news cycle.  I hope who ever is in charge in February 2013 will take time to consider evidence in full before directing the missiles toward Iran as a matter of first recourse.

            So whatever did happen to JobsJobsJobs and the Economy? Is a  focus on Libya a winning proposition for the typical person running for Congress this season? Better consult with that Binder full o’ women…

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I think you are missing the problem — misleading the American people.  It was an intentional misinformation campaign.

            I can only speculate about the motivation.  Perhaps they had just spent the week celebrating the death of Al Qaeda and the killing of OBL and this new terrorist attack didn’t fit with there narrative — 2 months before the election.

            Are we supposed to ignore this just because it is during an election?

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-great-gaffe/2012/10/18/38ce0d18-1954-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

          • JGC

            As a misinformation campaign, it would rival -maybe even surpass…(nahhh)- anything Cheney conjured up.  But I will keep it in mind.  I admit I would be very, very disappointed if I heard Obama’s people were trying to  to hide an outlying error in the  prevention of the worldwide terrorist network, resulting in the deaths of four fellow Americans.  We all know that there are ongoing attempts to injure Americans and disrupt our lives, where ever in the world we reside.  We really are at the mercy of our intelligence agencies and their informants.  How is the funding for that going on?    

          • Gregg Smith

            No, the Cheney thing is a canard.

          • JGC

            Plame.

          • Gregg Smith

            You disappoint me.

          • 1Brett1

            Sounds as though you’re moving toward the attack itself being an inside job from this administration? Maybe Obama blew up the building himself for insurancepurposes? 

          • Gregg Smith

            Huh?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             IF the admin had just come out and said we are still investigating instead of pushing the video nonsense for 2 weeks then this wouldn’t have blown up.

            Do you know why they didn’t?

          • JGC

            No.  To me the video nonsense sounded just like the typical sort  of nonsense the overseas Islamists get hyper-excited about. Why else would Salman Rushdie have been under a death threat all those years for a book? It is not the right reaction here, but it fits with the Islamist reaction I’ve heard over the past couple of decades.  

          • Gregg Smith

            JGC, if they are sorting out intelligence then why did they come out immediately with a fabrication about a protest over a silly video? Or are we to take Obama’s and Crowely’s words that Obama called it for what it was on day one?

          • 1Brett1

            Obama may have mentioned the video too much, but you’ve mentioned the video more than anyone! 

          • Gregg Smith

            “Mention” is a word, “blame” is a different word. They are not interchangable.

          • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

            Yet another conspiracy!?! Add that to the laundry list of Bushes… Too bad Bush missed 911 even though they had many, many, many warnings. Too bad the claims of weapons of mass destruction was fabricated so we invaded Iraq to finish papa Bush’s legacy. Too bad we sold surface to air missiles to the terrorist state of Iran, too bad sold drugs to buy arms as part of the Iran contra scheme. Too bad Neil Bush wasn’t indicted as part of the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal. Too bad two Republican presidents haven’t been impeached for subversion of the USS Constitution.

            Why are you trying to making hay over this?

            What about the tax scandal inflicted upon us by the house Republicans over the self-created financial crisis over the budget? What kind of damage did that do to the ecomony? How many about that 1.3 billion that the 2001 debt ceiling showdown cost us? It was so stupid. Michelle Bachman suggesting that we should default was insane. In addition, it slowed our economy down!!! These treasonous T-Party idiots in the house hold higher allegiance to Grover Norquist that to the USA. How’s that for a conspiracy?

          • William

             Bush had the approval of Congress whereas Obama ignored the Congress and went to war against Libya.

          • anamaria23

            It is unfortunate for you that you have to use hyperbole to make your point.  Obama went to WAR against Libya???
            You compare that to the invasion of Iraq?

    • Gregg Smith

      Until Obama comes out with a 2nd term agenda you really don’t have a leg to stand on. 

    • William

       Where is Obama’s plan? He has no budget so he has no plan. Where is the plan?

      • Don_B1

        Anyone can find a complete description of President Obama’s budget plan on his web site; for the overview, see:

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview

        And then the left column gives links to whatever details you want to see.

  • JGC

    Least favorite political yard sign in western Pennsylvania this past week:  AMERICA vs. Obama

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Sounds like some heavy ‘bitter clinger’ retribution.

      • JGC

        Yeah, a bit…for sure they are more religious than me, and as for the guns, well, they like hunting; it is truly a way of life.  Guns are not about self- protection here;  they are about the connection of hunting tradition and nature and self-sufficiency, and on public lands, too. Not just regular guns: bow-and-arrow, musket, trapping… Anyway, I am disturbed by these signs that signal there is a united and exceptional AMERICA against Barack Obama, the Kenyan, the Socialist, the Other…

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Since you are an Obama supporter I understand your sentiment.

          I have no idea what motivates the particular sign owner in this case.  However, since this is probably the biggest choice election we’ve had since 1980, Obama, the man,  is  a symbol for his policies.  Many feel that Mr. Obama is taking us in the wrong direction by expanding the debt and expanding the role of big government.

          I doubt it is ‘personal’.

          • JGC

            There is no one particular sign owner for “AMERICANS vs. Obama”.  These are mass-produced  big fat in-your-face signs in many yards in that part of PA, and available at my town’s Republican headquarters. And a bigger version available to plaster on the side of the roadside barns people drive by.   Maybe you are right the motivation comes from  expanding the debt and so forth, but no one here seemed to catch the implications when GWBush broke the budget for Iraq in 2002. I think it might more be cultural, and that  includes the religious culture.  

          • Gregg Smith

            The Obama bumper stickers are a walk in the park compared to the Bush ones.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, but, now that Obama has taken away everybody’s guns and has given them all to terrorists and drug lords, a walk in the park is no picnic! 

          • anamaria23

            What Obama bumper stickers?  I had one on my car and was advised to remove it as I worked at night and could invite damage to my car.  I have seen perhaps two Obama bumper stricker in years.

          • anamaria23

            In the last six months I have been in three towns that on given days host a LaRoche table with a large picture of the POTUS with a Hitler moustache.
            When approached, the pitch is that we need to get rid of the Communist in the WH.  Several people called police and were reminded of the the 1st amendment which did little to diminish the disgust.

        • Duras

          I saw one bumber sticker that said, “NOBAMA” writen within a confederate flag yesterday. 

          That particular car had two other–not pro-republican but–anti-Obama stickers.

    • Gregg Smith

      Supposedly Romney is up big in PA but I still don’t believe it. 

    • keltcrusader

      I have seen “Save America-Vote Republican”. What a joke, they are the last folks I would trust to save anything. They only know how to distroy.

    • anamaria23

      A fellow in MA is driving around with  a sign saying “A village in Kenya is missing it’s village idiot”

  • OnPointComments

    Someone posting yesterday made a correct prediction:  that “When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal” wouldn’t make the headline of topics.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Mitt Romney didn’t say it — it was Obama.

      So move on.

    • NewtonWhale

      Nor should it.

      Jon Stewart asked this question:

      “I would say even you would admit it was not the OPTIMAL RESPONSE, at least to the American people, as far as us all being on the same page”.

      Obama directly answered his question by using Stewart’s own phrasing:

      “Here’s what I’ll say: if four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal,and we’re going to fix it. All of it.”

      Watch the video.

      Obama was emphasizing the fact that it was the deaths that were most important, not the communications about them.

      I am struck by how much of right wing talking points are driven by the belief that people are simply too stupid to understand reality, and that the media shares their belief.

      • Gregg Smith

        No, it’s a damn disgrace. It’s insulting our intelligence to blame a silly movie for two weeks. Americans didn’t just “get killed”. They were murdered in a coordinated terrorist attack by an enemy we are at war with. Allen West had the right response.

         “The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors.  The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence.” 

        • NewtonWhale

          To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

          The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=2&hp&_r=0

          • Gregg Smith

            Are you seriously sticking with the video lie?

          • NewtonWhale

            If you followed the link you would realize that was a quote from a NYT article that just appeared. 

            The point is not whether the video actually inspired the attack, but that the Libyans who were there said so. That was the factual basis behind the early reporting and the administration’s statements.

          • Steve__T

             Since you were there well take your word for it.

          • Gregg Smith

            “Can you say that a little louder Candy?”

        • 1Brett1

          “‘The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence.’”

          Why say this only in response to an incident? Why not have our president proclaim this periodically? Say, once a week in the rose garden; it wouldn’t take long, and boy would it scare those terrorists silly, believe you me! …They would be scared like little girls!

          • Gregg Smith

            Well, they certainly have no fear now. We spent two weeks placating the rioting murderers by apologizing for the silly video. It’s like if you made your kid finish his peas, he gets mad and kills the cat so you say, “It was wrong to make you eat your peas”. It’s surreal. 

            We can’t even call it what it was, they scoff at our pussyfooting.

            And no, we don’t need to say it periodically just when when our embassy is breeched and our Ambassador, and others, are murdered with their corpses paraded throughout the streets.

            I prefer the quake in their sandals.

          • 1Brett1

            “It’s like if you made your kid finish his peas, he gets mad and kills the cat so you say, “It was wrong to make you eat your peas.”  

            Yeah, it is exactly like that! It’s uncanny; in fact, I looked at that statement about the kid killing the cat over peas and thought I was reading a story about the Libya attack! Uncanny!

          • Gregg Smith

            Thank you.

            Just out of curiosity, what subject matter in fiction drives you to a justifiable murderous rage?

          • Steve__T

             I don’t know about 1Brett1 but smug stupidity gets me every time.

          • keltcrusader

            Gregg, you are delusional. I see your idiotic posts here daily and am amazed that you always manage to sink lower each and every day. You should try getting some of your info outside that bubble you have built around yourself, you would be amazed what is out there.

          • Gregg Smith

            That was vacuous reply #3. I’ve seen it a thousand time before. I get my news from a very wide variety of sources. My comments are mainstream. If they sound otherwise to you then it’s you who are in the bubble.

          • keltcrusader

            Mainstream!! lol get a grip bud, you are a republican troll through & through

          • Gregg Smith

            You proved my point. I am now sure you don’t listen, watch or read any right-wing sources. And I’d guess you don’t watch or read first hand accounts via transcripts or C-Span. My guess is NPR and BBC with a little MSNBC thrown in for good measure.
            I would be willing to bet the farm I take in 5 times as much left-wing media than you do right.

          • keltcrusader

            Then my dear you would be completely wrong. I just recognize BS when I see it. You, on the other habd, just lap it up.

          • anamaria23

            Was the Ambassador’s body paraded through the street?
            Reports are that Libyans tried to save him and he was brought to a medical facility.

          • keltcrusader

            No, it wasn’t nor was he sodomized which has also been reported. Bunch of bunk to fire up the unwashed masses.

          • Don_B1

            As usual, it was a result of the Republicans and their radical supporters who KNOW that they don’t have a viable plan to govern the country but want the power to do so, so they make up anything that they think might sell, throw it against the wall and see what sticks. That is why they are pushing this whole Libyan Consulate attack thing.

          • Gregg Smith

            Yes, his corpse was paraded. 

  • nj_v2

    Truly sad news:

    http://www.argusleader.com/article/20121018/NEWS/310180036/George-McGovern-nearing-end-senator-s-family-says?odyssey=nav%7Chead

    George McGovern ‘nearing the end,’ senator’s family says
    ’72 presidential candidate described as being at peace

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    _Questions missed in the debates ( or should I call them reworked stump the chumps, stump speeches ) :

    _Do you Mr. Candidate support the current massive effort by the NSA, in Bluffdale Utah, to spy on all US citizens’ emails and telephone calls without a court ordered warrant ?

    _Do you find it curious, Mr. Candidate, that in all the discussion about global warming, that the Moon’s changing albedo has never been mentioned ? Of course you are aware that the Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches per year and that this is changing the amount of reflected solar energy, in the form of light, that strikes our planet.
    _If someone were to demonstrate to you an automobile that could get in the neighborhood of 200 miles to the gallon, would your administration work to take it from the drawing board to the production line? ( At this point I would offer up the name of the Urbee, to see if they would indeed prove or disprove, the inventors claims.)

    _Mr. Candidate. It has been estimated that the Earths population grows by about 77 million people per year, in excess of the number of deaths. In five years that will be approximately be equal to the number of people in the United States, today. Do you think the world will be able to produce 350 million or so jobs in the next 5 years.

    _Mr. Candidate, would you be willing to support a superfund to provide extensive prize money to any person or group that could solve some of humanities greatest intellectual problems? As an example, I sight the Clay Institute’s ( of Harvard ) prize offering of one million dollars to anyone who can solve the, so called 10 Millennium Math challenges and the efforts of Peter Diamandis and his Xprize challenges. Also, on this subject, Mr. Candidate, the Clay Institute is offering 1 Million dollars for a resolution to the famous P vs. NP problem ( Polynomial versus Nondeterministic Polynomial ). If it could be proved that P = NP, and a method to determine solutions in NP were show to be feasible in “real time”, would it be fair to say, that one million dollars was much too little a prize purse; as such a discovery, would be almost as useful, and as important, as the “ discovery” of numbers themselves? ( See Note 1)
    _ Mr. Candidate. Do you accept the possibility of non- terrestrial intelligent life in the Universe ?
    _ Mr. Candidate. Science argues for the correctness of Evolution as a theory of Human ascendancy . Science also has shown that the human brain can be modeled as a collection of neural networks. Further, it has often been demonstrated that neural networks can be “evolved” , via programs called, “genetic algorithms”. How would you explain the inability of the scientific community to “ evolve” a computer into something that we humans would consider to be intelligent ?

    ___Note 1: This months issue of “Scientific America” has an article about the candidates positions on some scientific issues. It is worth the read, I believe.

    _Note 2 : The The Urbee is a 3D Printed Car that Gets 200 Miles per Gallon :

    http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/the-urbee-is-a-3d-printed-car-that-gets-200-miles-per-gallon-2010112/

    • AC

      i like a lot of your questions!!
      but i can’t help but feel sorry for the poor person who has to ogle my emails and social life…:/
      i’m so boring.

    • Don_B1

      I think that if the candidates just respond to the questions scientists have put forward on climate science; see:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/third-debate-climate-change_b_1982523.html

      Elliott Negin of the Union of Concerned Scientists makes the case that Florida has already suffered from Climate Change, something that over 70% of Americans (so at least one third of Republicans) agree is affecting the country, in ways specific to Florida:

      “Earlier this month, more than 120 Florida public officials, scientists, engineers and economists sent aletter to the two leading presidential candidates urging them to explain at campaign stops in the state and during the October 22 debate, which will take place in Boca Raton, what they will do about the problem.

      The sea level jumped more than 8 inches along Florida’s coast over the last century, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects a 9- to 24-inch rise by 2060, and roughly 40 percent of the U.S. population most at risk from storm surges driven by sea level rise lives in the state. This presents a major headache for local officials. Cities and counties in South Florida likely will have to spend billions of dollars to deal with flooding and drinking water contamination, according to a recent Miami Herald story.”

      Please go to the link above for full Huffington Post article and for the Miami Herald link. It is really as important to understand for this country’s future as understanding what it will take to fully recover from the “Great Contraction” [the 2007-2009 Recession]. As indicated in Paul Krugman’s column today, Romney/Ryan and the Republicans generally and the Tea Party component particularly have NO plan on the table to solve either problem.

      Their approach to Climate Change seems about as appropriate as it would have been for FDR to have advocated selling our tanks and planes to the Germans, Japanese and Italians in the 1930s.

  • Coastghost

    US unemployment rate is still not below 6%, although Obama promised us almost four years ago that with passage of the stimulus the rate would be no more than 5.7% in May 2012; arguably, actual unemployment remains no less than 8%. NPR trumpets on Obama’s behalf that the housing market has turned/is turning a corner, new housing starts and building permits show it: without reminding listeners of the glut of foreclosed homes still on the books, without reminding listeners how hard credit is to come by even for prospective borrowers with good credit ratings, and without mentioning the prospects for a return of recession in 2013 regardless of Obama’s self-righteous bluster. Obama claims friendship with “clean coal”: but even West Virginia Democrats despise Obama, no matter whether they manage coal companies or labor in the mines, because they know just how friendly Obama’s EPA is to their state’s coal industry. Obama nobly claims to have saved a thousand tire manufacturing jobs, hoorah and hooray; yet he fails to acknowledge that his Administration’s “investments” of hundreds of millions of dollars in Solyndra and other “green energy” companies have yielded losses of thousands of jobs, not to mention the loss of the hundreds of millions of “invested” dollars. Obama inspires no confidence among employers leery of his still-not-wholly-implemented Patient Protection and Affordable Care Tax Act, the unknown costs of which have contributed directly to exacerbation of the already-stubborn unemployment rate. Simply in terms of the economy, Obama has demonstrated his managerial ineptitude: do we really need to be reminded for four more years just how pathetic and pusillanimous his “leadership” is? Our enemies and our allies know it and know it well: why don’t we know it?

    • AC

      just out of curiosity, when was the last time you snail mailed a letter?

      • Gregg Smith

        I love snail mail. Sending a letter old school gets results on a business level and is far more personal on a social level. 

        • AC

          i guess it depends on your client list – we’ve removed several thousand dollars worth of mailing/stamps since 2006 and aren’t having any issues…..but there IS something to be said about the personal touch, like a greeting card I guess….

          • Gregg Smith

            Yea, it’s a romantic nostalgia thing but I still like it.

      • Coastghost

        Yeah, the price of stamps is going up again, too.

        • AC

          i meant it more to mean who are you going to blame when laid off postal workers inflate unemployment numbers by a huge percentage – I don’t see them running very much longer as they have been…..

          • keltcrusader

            They wouldn’t be doing quite as badly if in 2006 congress didn’t force them to pre-pay retirement healthcare funds years in advance to the tune of 5.5 billion dollars per year for 10 years. Just another way to force privatization down our throats. Problem is UPS & FedEX rely on USPS to make deliveries to rural areas because they can’t/won’t cover them. Don’t get me wrong – they are losing business, but there are forces at work making thisng much worse than they should be for them.  

          • AC

            that is interesting! wonder what’s really going on….

          • Coastghost

            I’ll blame no one: I’ll give credit to the vaunted USPS itself. It’s been a parking place of political patronage for decades. It would be hard to believe its innate inefficiencies haven’t killed it already, but for the intercessions of politicians providing the patronage. Failing its abolition, the USPS should adopt the coelacanth as its mascot, a true “living fossil”.

          • AC

            i can tell you haven’t travelled much!! try complaining about your mail in Singapore – I dare you!! lol!
            no seriously, both of our responses are totally unhelpful to the people about to be laid off.

          • J__o__h__n

            Or any time the Post Office tries to be more efficient by reducing service to very rural areas, their Republican congressmen prevent it.

    • 1Brett1

      Those “NPR trumpets”! Damn them; damn them all to hell! 

      • Coastghost

        No: simply cut all Federal funding to the CPB. Most of NPR’s actual news coverage these days simply apes what the commercial press and networks and internet feeds offer, same stories, same talking heads, same volubility: what does the New York Times have to tell us today, what does WaPo want us to hear today? (If I were keen to learn NYT and WaPo viewpoints, I would subscribe to the NYT and to WaPo.) MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was an “On Point” lead just the other day, being all non-partisan and impartial. A whole hour with Harvard alum Chrystia Freeland defending the Left Plutocracy just yesterday. Why continue such Federal subsidization of American journalism, are the Feds going to have to hire every reporter and editor getting laid off by every shuttered newspaper and newsweekly? When NPR is not simply duplicating the efforts of commercial outlets, it’s offering rank domestic propaganda. (I don’t watch television so I can’t speak to PBS, but if Jim Lehrer’s debate performance offers any indication . . . .) 

        • anamaria23

          Public media is comprised vastly more that
          news coverage.

        • Don_B1

          You have confused CPB with NPR; certainly NPR does report what other news media are reporting for issues in this country, but also has a lot of local stations that have their own reporters.

          When it comes to foreign news, there are actually MORE NPR reporters abroad than the broadcasting networks have.

          When a crisis breaks out the broadcasters hustle out a team which then has to hastily gather facts that are apparent but lack the ability to provide the full background details; they end up interviewing “experts” from U.S. based think tanks which sometimes do have the background depth but often just offer biased information that serves one of the two parties, usually the Republican Party.

          Exceptions do include NBC with Richard Engle, who regularly reports from the Middle East, but that is a “hot spot” that is the exception in world-wide news that otherwise is otherwise not covered until it “breaks.”

          • Coastghost

            No, I have not confused CPB with NPR: CPB is the non-profit corporation which, with its Federally-funded annual budget of $445.2 million (FY 2012), funds both NPR and PBS (AND the Radio Program Fund, AND public radio program producers, AND direct grants to public radio stations). It was the CPB that formed PBS in 1969 and NPR in 1970. As recently as FY 2005/2006, almost 40% of NPR’s funding came from Federal, state, and local tax expenditures (17.3% from the Feds and CPB, 22% from state and local taxes). I suppose technically it would not do simply to de-fund CPB, the entire Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that Lyndon gave us would have to be repealed, and I’m all in favor of that, too. I’ve asked at NPR sites several times for an explanation of how or whether a cost benefit analysis of NPR’s tax take is justified considering “only” 26 million listen to it on a weekly basis, and one or two million of them seem to be Canadian (we don’t even return the favor by playing “Canada O Canada” or “The Blue Canadian Rockies” with any regularity); but no NPR personage has accepted my invitation. 

  • Coastghost
  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    Breaking new conversation today, an enlightened talk by , Heather Brooke: “My battle to expose government corruption”, at :http://www.ted.com/talks/heather_brooke_my_battle_to_expose_government_corruption.html

    It fits with this weeks issues.

    • Don_B1

      The comment on that link, from Caleb Bronson:

      “Slightly off topic comment: why have there only been 45,664 views of this? TED talks should be world-wide popular. This is the best blog for circulating ideas and conversations.”

      also applies to all of us here who want to think more deeply about the issues that affect our lives.

  • JGC

    That photo above of the father of Quazi M.R.A. Nafis really does break a parent’s heart.

  • AC

    attn Nurses and Orderlies:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx0zxr3D_zU
    you are soon to be replaced (~10yrs?). make sure you blame bush, obama (or possibly romney) for this…

    i do wonder what romney is possibly going to say if he wins – his talk about ‘creating jobs’ seems so delusional to me, like he’s running in the 50s or something. Obama’s not much better, but i do sense he’s starting to get it at least….

    • Mike_Card

      I wonder if the 12 million new jobs (now that the president can create jobs, even though the government can’t create a single job) will be mostly baby-sitter, day care jobs for all the new babies to be born because all the Planned Parenthood centers will be shuttered under a Romney monarchy.

      • AC

        yikes! what a scary variable i didn’t even consider!!

        and if you don’t go designer, what to do with all those kids? tsk, tsk – their parents should have tried harder!
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby

        o wait – I mean ‘irresponsible’:
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html

      • Gregg Smith

        So if we cut funding to PP it will result in more unwanted pregnancy? They make big bucks in the abortion business, they’ll be fine.

        • Yar

          Gregg, to use your words.

          “That’s Sick!”

          • Gregg Smith

            That’s was my point.

        • anamaria23

          Planned Parenthood has likely prevented more abortions that  we will ever know.

          Reversing Roe vs Wade will not stop abortions which women have sought  for
          eons, too often to their peril.

          Birth control and sex education at an early age must be made available  on a grand scale. 

          • Gregg Smith

            Roe v Wade isn’t going anywhere. Romney has said he would defund PP and he should. That doesn’t mean they won’t still be in business.

          • J__o__h__n

            Roe v. Wade is one Romney Supreme Court nomination away from being overturned.  Bork is his judicial advisor.

          • Gregg Smith

            Stare Decisis. It won’t happen.

          • Don_B1

            If I was into acting like bully Romney, I would ask how much you would contribute to PP if Roe v. Wade is overturned with a Romney SCOTUS appointment? Your life savings?

            I sure wouldn’t !

            Please read:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/magazine/mitt-romney.html?pagewanted=all

        • Mike_Card

          Abortion consultations are small potatoes compared to PP’s primary mission of providing women’s reproductive health services–everthing, including gyn exams, mammograms, etc.  PP is better known among young women as a resource for contraceptive information.

          It is possible that PP will become redundant IF Obamacare becomes fully implemented, even tho single-payer would have been vastly preferable.

          So the short answer to your question is:  Yes.  I refuse to believe that abortion is the preferred method of contraception among any group of females.

      • 1Brett1

        Romney’s just confused as to where he keeps getting that “12 million” number from because he also keeps thinking, “shoot, after my tax cuts for the wealthy, I’ll save $12 million more in my personal taxes next year!”

        • Gregg Smith

          The wealthy won’t pay a penny less. Just because it’s a talking point does’t make it true.

          • Don_B1

            Then what was the Romney purpose of announcing his tax cuts a year ago without any of the current “qualifications” other than, as he said at the time, the unleashing of the “job creators” to grow the economy (and only peripherally jobs)?

            You will need to provide a link to a credible source to convince anyone of your claim.

          • Steve__T

             Yeah, Just because Romney said something doesn’t make it true.
            I don’t care for 47% of the people 100% of the time, no no no I care for 100% of the people 47% of the time, No no no that’s not it, I care! yeah that’s it.

    • Wm_James_from_Missouri

      I liked your video.

      • AC

        a person from another site i read a lot sent this out in a group email this morning – i thought perfect timing!!
        i’m going to try and put up an example of where the jobs are/will be every week…..

    • Don_B1

      Romney’s “Jobs Plan” is completely vacuous; see:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/opinion/krugman-snow-job-on-jobs.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

      It basically comes down to the statement from the Boca tape, where Romney stated that just electing him will cause a huge jump in business hiring and investment. That is the core of the “confidence fairy” that has so far failed to show even a hint of presence despite all the cuts in taxes and spending, anywhere it the world.

      This “Lesser Depression” was caused by a systemic financial crisis, the combination of over-leveraged debt in the private domain, both homeowners and investment banks. For a good explanation of the seriousness of the economic disaster that the Obama ARRA helped this country avoid, and the fact that the current recovery, as weak as it is, is remarkably BETTER than that in other similar crises (Romney’s attempt to compare this recession with the Reagan 1982-83 Recession is ridiculous in the extreme), see:

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/sorry-u-s-recoveries-really-aren-t-different.html

      and

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-16/reinhart-rogoff-say-romney-advisers-understate-crisis-severity.html

      Romney/Ryan, should they win the election, will be faced with horrendous austerity proposals from the Tea?Republicans in the House (unless the election throws enough of them out of office) that if he signs will put the country in another recession, reminiscent of the 1937 retrenchment by FDR which created the second recession of the Great Depression. Then they will propose stimulus, which will mainly be ineffective tax cuts for the wealthy and then, maybe, the House Republican will be thrown out of office in the 2014 election, but then it will take the equivalent of a stimulus TWICE the size of the ARRA to recover from the additional DAMAGE Republican policies of austerity will have created.

  • Yar

    Does the News Media believe balanced coverage of the Fiscal cliff both parties should get equal blame? Because the Budget Control act of 2011 is the result of Republican Chess.
    Michelle Obama said in her speech at the convention ” I love that for Barack, there is no such thing as “us” and “them” – he doesn’t care whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or none of the above…he knows that we all love our country…and he’s always ready to listen to good ideas…he’s always looking for the very best in everyone he meets.” 

    On September 1st in Jacksonville, Florida both Ann and Mitt Romney said “We’re Going to Take this Country Back”. 
    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said   “Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term.” speaking at the Heritage Foundation in 2010 The fiscal cliff is a construction of the republican party to take power.  Blame for “cut the baby in half policy” is squarely on the Republican Party.  News reporting is about telling the truth, not a balance between party representations of truth.

    • Gregg Smith

      The “fiscal cliff” is a complete and total failure of Congress to face reality and work together. They couldn’t strike a deal after taking it to the deadline so the ceded their souls to a committee with an out. They took the out. Here we are. It’s shameful.

      • 1Brett1

        Yeah! You see Romney will be able to rock Congress like he rocked working with Democrats as Governor (800 vetoes; 707 of those later overridden by Dems)!  

      • OnPointComments

        The lead item in Senator Coburn’s “Wastebook 2012″ is “The most unproductive and unpopular Congress in modern history does nothing while America struggles.”  He has that right.

        • Gregg Smith

          I’d go for Coburn (or DeMint) to replace McConnell.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Where is the leadership in DC?

      It is clear that the Senate is the black hole on this one. The gang of 6 tried to broker a deal.

      Since the Prez isn’t leading on this. — for the last 6 months — it is pretty clear that wants to keep the tax issue open as a campaign issue through election season.

      The conventional wisdom is the lame duck congress will craft a solution after the election.

      • Don_B1

        Do you even realize how contradictory you are here?

        1) The “gang of six” has Republican membership ONLY to drag out the time until the discussion could no longer be sustained without reaching some positive conclusion. At that point, the Republican members would withdraw and announce that they would not vote for the measure.

        2) When nearly every economist of independent standing agrees that some revenue increases are necessary, and even some Republican members of Congress privately agree also, the refusal of Republicans to support any revenue increases in their fealty to Grover Norquist, an “unelected policy maker,” is what has kept the fiscal cliff problem open.

        3) So the “lame duck congress” will propose a “solution” for the new Congress to enact when it comes into office? Will they do it by a law? Will they just “kick the problem down the road” in some willy-nilly way?

        This is where you have not even recognized the real causes of the disagreements which the Republicans are making unbridgeable.

        What new Congress is likely to accept a severely lame dysfunctional compromise that the current Congress, lame-duck or not, would be likely to generate, since the Republican side has refused realistic proposal after proposal?

    • William

      Mitch McConnell said  “If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing
      to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate
      for us to do business with him.”

      Obama has not had a budget approved in 3 years. This is not a guy that wants to work with anyone that disagrees with his policy of fundamentally changing America.

    • Steve__T

       No the reporting today is all about nothing, its who owns the station, truth in reporting has gone the way of the Dodo, hard to find, and even harder to believe that no one else had any thing to say about the subject.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    See http://www.romneytaxplan.com/  That says it all.

    • Don_B1

      Isn’t that beautiful ! ? ! A real treasure and so true.

  • AC

    total useless nonsense to talk about, but this is the closest to the debate i watched, lol

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    • 1Brett1

      The people who do the “bad lip-reading” videos have produced some funny ones!

      • Gregg Smith

        I’ll agree with you there.

  • john__riley

    Mitt Romney will win this election.  Here is why : He respects President Obama as an opponent.  President Obama believes Mitt Romney is the cariacature his campaign has created. 

    • AC

      this is a strange point of view – what sort of analysis technique are you using here? i’m not really sure what to think of this statement…? i’m not seeing either one of them as being particularly ‘repsectful’, if you could point out a specific incidence, that would be great!

      • 1Brett1

        It’s a cultural thing, really…Mormons talk over people, hurl repeated rhetorical questions at them  and glare at them as a token of respect

        • Don_B1

          I have no reason to think that ALL Mormons are as arrogant and abrasive as Mitt Romney is, so I would not wan to characterize them that way.

          • 1Brett1

            Exactly my point! I was using sarcasm… ;-)

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        The Obama campaign is all about attacking Romney’s character — no core, tax cheat, liar, felon , murderer ,vulture….

        Romney attacks Obama’s record.

        There is a big difference.

        • AC

          murderer?

          • Gregg Smith

            Yes, it was an ad by Obama’s PAC. Obama did not condemn it.

          • AC

            i had no idea! what did it say he ‘murdered’?

          • Gregg Smith
          • AC

            no offense, but this is exactly the kind of ‘blog’ site i stay far, far away from & am afraid of; the head/one liners are waaayyy to dramatic for my taste – it screams yellow journalism !!

          • Steve__T

             Good for you. stay away from crap.

          • Gregg Smith

            The blog didn’t make the ad.

          • Don_B1

            Good for you!

          • J__o__h__n

            What statements made by Romney PACs has Romeny refudiated?

          • Mike_Card

            The ad never aired, except on YouTube.  It was produced by the Breitbart organization and falsely attributed to an Obama PAC.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            It got  a lot of play on cable — MSNBC, FOX, and CNN.

          • Mike_Card

            It wasn’t sponsored by the Obama PAC or any element of the re-election effort.

          • JGC

            Romney also was the driver in a car accident on curving French country roads where someone was killed, but that is in the category of “tragic accident”  rather than “murder”.

          • AC

            i never saw any of these, were they aired anywhere in specific?

          • JGC

            Sorry I lost capability for reliably posting the links.  But, if you google “romney car accident”,  the daily beast, boston. com, and the U.K. daily mail should come up with background stories on this.  I think I originally read it in the New York Times from an article around the time of Romney’s first run at the Presidency in 2008ish. (It is pretty well documented.) It is a tragic story about Romney when he was a young witness for the Mormon faith in France. Still,  it is an important event that I would have thought would mold a young person’s perspective on the randomness of life.  For Romney’s current disposition on the necessity of comprehensive health care, there seems to be no personal life history percolating through to color his conclusions.  It all seems to be about the bottom line. 

          • AC

            i did see stuff on his wife foisting off a sick horse on unknown people – don’t know if that’s true? and i saw one just the other day that said Ryan posed himself and his family washing clean dishes at an empty food pantry cuz it was a good photo op, but not sure i believe it – no one is that stupid, with the way the world has so many eyes these days? he just doesn’t strike me as dumb enough to throw away success on a fake photo op…

          • Mike_Card

            Flabbergastion all around: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

            To be fair, horse-trading has its own set of what’s fair and what’s out-of-bounds.  Lying about the horse’s health is considered fair play; that’s why offers are almost always subject to a vet’s exam. 

          • Don_B1

            Apparently Ryan is; this is the first time he has run a campaign in anything other than his Wisconsin district, and at that level the scrutiny is not anywhere near what it is for a V.P. candidate and his lack of understanding shows, from his denial of applying for stimulus funds, saying that they don’t work, while denying that they work as he voted against the ARRA. And he had just voted FOR a Republican designed stimulus bill worth $700 billion.

            But you can try to figure out which way he thinks (the way the wind is blowing today?) from his performance on 14 February 2002 when he supported the Bush stimulus bill:

            http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/19/711051/paul-ryan-supported-economic-stimulus-under-bush-you-have-to-spend-a-little-to-grow-a-little/

            You can find the source program at C-CPAN with the relevant sections at the 1 hr 27 min 27 sec mark and the 3 hour 48 minute 5 second mark:

            http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/168695-1

            A whole list of Ryan problem policies/remarks is assembled here:

            http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/about-last-night/

            Romney/Ryan are getting a lot of traction on the economy because people do not understand how bad this economy was in 2008 and how hard it is to recover from a balance sheet or systemic financial crisis. I hope some of my posts on that have made sense, and if there are questions, please ASK.

            See Reinhart and Rogoff:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-16/reinhart-rogoff-say-romney-advisers-understate-crisis-severity.html

            and:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/sorry-u-s-recoveries-really-aren-t-different.html

            There are some concepts here that are not familiar because the American economy has not experienced them since the 1930s.

            How many people do you talk to who talk about the economy in the 1930s other than vague references to troubled hard times and invocations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with either praise or condemnation?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            They trotted out a poor guy whose wife died of cancer and he blamed it on Romney.  He directly charged Romney with the death of his wife — no he didn’t use the word murder.

            However:

            - the women had her own health insurance
            - the man was laid off years after Bain sold the company
            -Bain sold the company AFTER Romney left Bain
            -The woman was diagnosed with cancer years after the man lost his job.

            There isn’t even a loose nexus between Romney and this man’s troubles yet the campaign trumpets this poor man’s story and his Superpac made an ad about it. (gregg linked to the ad)

          • Don_B1

            Obama’s campaign attacked Romney ON HIS RECORD, the record of his treatment of workers, his poor performance in Massachusetts, where his admittedly good thing, the passage of Romneycare, Romney now disavows.

            Consider the exaggeration Romney makes when he takes about starting a “small business” which began with a capitalization of $37 million, from European investors in shell companies in the Caribbean and South American oligarchs living in Florida (some with family ties to elite groups raining terror on the poor of their countries); see:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html

            I doubt this is what most Americans think this is how starting a small business works.

    • Gregg Smith

      I agree and that is why Romney has scored so big in the debates. So many people knew only the caricature and it was demonstrably false.

      • anamaria23

        To imply that Mitt Romney has not changed  his positions  since the onset of the campaign is ludicrous. He was far right to win the primary and now is moderate.
        It was no caricature standing at the podium in the Repub primaries.

        • Gregg Smith

          He is not a felon, tax cheat, murderer, outsourcer, liar, bigamist, grandma tosser who disrespects women and loves to fire people. That’s the caricature.

          • J__o__h__n

            He is someone who pays less than his fair share of taxes (legally), an outsourcer, liar, denier of women’s rights, and does love to fire people. 

          • Gregg Smith

            I disrespectfully disagree.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Anamarie, I’ve been a Romney supporter for year and have been following his campaign closely. He hasn’t changed. I would be disappointed if he did.

          I’ve noticed that the Obama campaign operatives have attempted to make this charge. This is another attempt at character assassination. It is disgusting.

          • J__o__h__n

            This month alone, he changed his abortion policy before he switched it back again for the next news cycle. 

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            No he didn’t.  He simply said doesn’t plan abortion legislation as part of his major agenda.

            Some people thought this was ambiguous ( I don’t know how) and they quickly clarified.

            Another attempt by Axelrod to spin.

          • anamaria23

            He is on record as saying he would reverse Roe vs Wade.

          • Don_B1

            Exactly! He said he would exuberantly do it (paraphrase using the word “exuberant,” but that was the sense of the sentence he spoke.)

          • anamaria23

            Completely false.

          • Don_B1

            You are correct anamaria23; “Worried” has said that before and been shown grounds for correction, but as usual, he is here to promote a deceitful false story to con the American people into giving up their future to enrich the rent-seekers among the most wealthy.

          • Steve__T

             I know you believe this but I’m sorry that’s just laughable. More like character suicide, you do remember the 47% line….na didn’t think so.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

      Mitt Romney IS a caricature his campaign has created. He is nothing like the Mitt he had to be to get elected governor of MA. And the etch-a-sketch he’s had this year has been shaken at  least several times a week.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Obama: Big Bird and Binders
    Romney: pro growth government reforms

    Does Obama and Axelrod really think this is a winning formula and contrast?

    • rogger2

      If you are truly “worriedforthecountry” support someone who’s actually different from Obama.  Nothing will change with Romney as President. 

      I’m voting 3rd party b/c I’m fed up with both parties. 

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         I disagree. We finally have a chance to remove the bloat in the Federal government.  The last candidate before Romney to get it — was Perot.

        Perot just came out and endorsed Romney.

        • rogger2

          I hate to break it to you but Romney was the governor of MA.  That state is the definiton of “bloat”.  I see nothing in his record that he would remove any “bloat in the Federal government”. 

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Were you in MA when Romney was governor?

            He inherited a $3B deficit and left with a $2B rainy day fund.

            He mostly did this by making government more efficient. He completed a list of 8 reforms — closing and combining agencies, etc.
            He did all this with a 87% Dem legislature.

            Things turned around  so quickly that he lost his leverage with the Dems and they blocked his final two reforms including elimating the corrupt patronage haven — the turnpike authority.

            He actually did quite a bit — and most people didn’t notice a service cut.

          • AaronNM

            And how did he create that “rainy day” fund? By INCREASING fees for state licenses and permits exponentially. Not to burst your bubble, but THAT’S just a backdoor tax increase, MOSTLY on lower to middle class people.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Under MA law — fees cannot be raised to a higher level than the services they cover.   Fee for service.

            Also, Romney had a principle to not raise ‘broad based’ fees because that would hurt the economy.  For instance, he refused to raise driver license fees.

            The total ‘cost’ of the fees was only $700M out of the $5B total.
             

          • ChevSm

            Yeah but government spending actually increased 24% when Romney was governor.
            MA gvt spending in 2002 (no Romney influence): 22.47 billion
            MA gvt spending in 2007 (last year of Romney influence): 27.92 billion 
            He’s just as much a big gvt guy as Obama. 

          • Don_B1

            He’s actually a BIGGER spender than Obama, who inherited an economy that the CBO estimated to have a 2009 deficit of $1.1 trillion on 7 January 2009. When the actual spending for 2009 was totalled, it came to $1.3 trillion, because NOBODY had accurate data until then on just how bad the bubble burst had damaged the economy, certainly not before Obama had taken office.

            That number included the quarter to a half of the $787 billion ARRA (stimulus) which was necessary to halt the vicious circle of dropping consumer spending and consequent job loss which was spiraling out of control.

            The next two years, reflecting the weak recovery, the deficit did drop about $100 billion and in 2012 came in another $100 billion lower around $1.1 trillion and is estimated to be under $1 trillion in 2013.

            But most economists estimate that passage of Obama’s American Jobs Act last September would have lowered the unemployment rate by 1%.

            While it would have cost $250 billion, it could probably have lowered the deficit by around $100 billion this year and next and the next through lower unemployment, food stamp and Medicaid costs and increased revenues from GDP growth. It also would have given the economy a boost for years as businesses would have saved in transportation costs and other infrastructure improvements.

          • rogger2

            Thank God no.
            I’m just fed up with the same corrupt 2 party system with nothing really getting done. 
            I just think that if you were really “worriedforthecountry” you would be promoting a candidate that’s not more of the same.

          • Steve__T

             He is a Republican and thinks that that is the only party that should be in office period. He wants more of the same he likes it the way it was.

          • Don_B1

            While I understand your cynicism, I would ask that you consider how any political process where a wide mix of opinions have to be worked out.

            But given that, it is demonstrable that the Republicans have been exceptionally obstructionary in order to make it appear that Obama’s policies do  not work, so that they can sell their bankrupt policies to the voters.

            If there is to be ANY way to reform the system, it is imperative that the Republicans are not rewarded for their obstruction of policies that would have done much to make the economy recover quicker and stronger without the terrible damage to people’s lives from not being able to find work for such a long period.

            Please read some of my posts earlier in this  program commentary. If there is anything you need clarification on, please ask. I will do my best to find an answer.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    Obama has been accused of having no plan – but whether you like the results or not we’ve been watching him do it for almost 4 years. Romney says he has a plan but we’ll have to elect him to find out what(if) it is.

    • toc1234

      reminiscent of the way the Dems hammered through Obamacare, to quote Pelosi, “We’ll have to pass it to find out what’s in it”.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

         Apparently this strategy isn’t actually distasteful to many Republicans.

      • Don_B1

        Speaker Pelosi made that comment in the context of answering questions about some specifics which were changing as she and others worked to get consensus (remember when members of Congress worked together to get things done?) on those specifics so that there would actually be enough votes to pass it.

        Until the minute specifics were thrashed out, members were not committing to vote for the PPACA, so its contents were not yet finalized and she could not answer at least some of the questions. The timing was such that once enough votes were committed, it would be voted on, so at least until then the exact wording was not known.

  • Michiganjf

    It’s AMAZING Republicans will back SERIAL LIARS like Romney and Ryan, then complain that the current administration didn’t disseminate all the facts about Libya the day it happenned, as though that’s the greatest offense ever committed against the American people!

    Weapons of mass destruction, anyone???!!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    Obama did turn this county around – the proof being that so few people actually remember how bad things were 4 years ago.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      The recession ended in June 2009.  That was 3 1/2 years ago.
       

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

         It did – and Obama started in Jan 2009 when the economy was in free fall and accelerating. I think that would qualify as a turn around.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           The stimulus did not have time to take effect by June 2009.

          The recession ended because of TARP and other actions by Bush at the end of his term.

          • Don_B1

            The start and end points of a recession are determined based on changes in GDP, which does NOT have a close correlation with employment.

            When there is a lot of productivity growth, the GDP will grow WITHOUT any or much growth in employment. That is why unemployment is considered a LAGGING indicator in the set of economic indexes.

            Employers used the reduced demand for goods to reduce their workforce and the resulting high unemployment and low demand for workers to demand more work from those that they retained.

    • anamaria23

      Yes and if Gov. Romney wins he will benefit mightily from

       the slow, steady progress back from the precipice.  He  will be starting off in a much more secure position and with one less war to end.   People have forgotten.

      • Don_B1

        Gov. Romney’s main problem should he become president will be the Tea/Republicans in Congress, particularly the House, who may pursue their agenda of immediate austerity which if not vetoed by Romney would plunge the country right back into recession, as Romney himself admitted in an interview with Mark Halperin of Time magazine back in May or June.

        It goes to what Norman Ornstein said on PBS’s “Need to Know” about a month ago, that Romney, while he could never admit it, probably is hoping that the Senate stays in Democratic control, as otherwise the House and Senate could combine on a government finance (spending) bill that could repeal most or all of ALL that Obama has accomplished, from healthcare to the stimulus spending that helped clean energy, using “Reconciliation” to prevent/avoid a Democratic Party filibuster (thus only 50 votes needed to pass the bill).

        That is IF, a potentially big if, Romney cares about creating a recession or not. He may feel that he would get better response out of his Republicans after letting them create a big problem and showing that he could “fix it.” But fixing it would undoubtedly be a much bigger problem than he thinks.

        So if those who are dedicated to a plutocratic future for the U.S. vote for Romney and win, they are certain to cause not only major social distress (particularly for women) but also major economic stress for the unemployed who are still not back to work.

        And if Republican voter suppression works and elects Romney and a Republican Congress but also keeps state legislatures Republican, it will be locked in and reversing it will be difficult.

  • Michiganjf

    This lie of Romney’s about the “Binders full of women” wasn’t just a lie… it was a detailed, intricate, elaborate lie he concocted for the made-up story’s impact about how much he “cares” about women.This is indicative of a psychopathic, serial liar, and it’s NOT the only example of Romney concocting elaborate lies.THIS IS THE TYPE OF PERSON REPUBLICANS WANT IN THE PRESIDENCY OF OUR NATION????!!!!It’s ASTOUNDING that these conservatives are so intent “their side wins,” no matter the cost to our country and the dignity of the Presidency!!

    • John_in_Amherst

      Karl Rove and the GOP seem to share share  Karl Marx’s belief that the end justifies the means. 

  • keltcrusader

    Rose Garden
    10:43 A.M. EDT
    THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.
    Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
    The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
    Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
    Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
    It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
    Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
    Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. 
    As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
    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.  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.
    But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
    We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
    Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
    END10:48 A.M. EDT
     

  • keltcrusader

    “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.  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.”

    Please note “acts of terror” and “this terrible act” ties the statement to the Benghazi attack.   

    • OnPointComments

      No one cares about the semantics or words used in the Rose Garden speech.  For two weeks, the Obama administration lied to the American public and the worldwide public by proclaiming that the attack was spontaneous and about a video, even to the point of running commercials in the Middle East to apologize for the video.  It was a planned terrorist attack, with heavy artillery and rocket-propelled grenades.  Although there were plenty of warning signs that the consulate was in danger leading up to the terrorist attack, someone made the decision to decrease security.

      • Mike_Card

        Are we going to talk about the WMD’s, too?

        • OnPointComments

          I’ll take a page from Bill O’Reilly in the debate with Jon Stewart:  Bush is gone.  He is not the president anymore.

      • keltcrusader

        You ignore them because the prove your narrative false.  

        • OnPointComments

          This sums it up nicely.

      • Steve__T

         No one cares about the semantics?

        That’s just ignorant, your English teachers would not be happy with that statement, you just made all their hard work for not. OK what about syntax?

  • NewtonWhale

    I’ve got to hand it to Romney, he is
    fiendishly clever.

    By torching his credibility in
    spectacular fashion over the “act of terror” quote, AND giving birth
    to the internet meme of the year, he virtually guaranteed that no one will bother to discuss his many lies:

    1. 
    His Tax Plan Will
    Create 12 Million Jobs

    2.     
    Oil Production Is Down
    On Federal Lands Under Obama

    3.     
    He Wants To
    Increase Pell Grants

    4.     
    He Advocated For Same
    Auto Bankruptcy Obama Used

    5.     
    Obama To Blame For
    High Gas Prices

    6.     
    Obama Will Raise Taxes
    On Middle Class By $4,000

    7.     
    Gun Rights Group Was
    Onboard With Assault Weapons Ban

    8.     
    Obama Promised 5.4
    Percent Unemployment

    9.     
    Obama Doubled The
    Deficit

    10.  Obama Went On An Apology Tour (This one was a
    PolitiFact “Pants-on-Fire” lie)

    11.  Obama Did Not Call Benghazi Attack An Act Of
    Terror

    12.  The 4 year tuition free scholarship that isn’t 

    http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/17/will-media-fact-checkers-rise-to-the-romney-deb/190685

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/18/1146370/-Romney-s-big-four-years-tuition-free-scholarship-covered-just-a-small-fraction-of-college-costs

    But wait! There’s more! He didn’t ask for the “binders full of women”.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/romney-binders-full-of-women_n_1974092.html

    …and last, but not
    least: No, Mitt, fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-illegal-automatic-weapons-20121016,0,5158983.story

  • mezure

     Romney’s challenge, to the President to look at the particulars of his retirement funds for investments in China, spoke volumes.  His challenge is based on the fact that Bain invested in companies using retirement funds from government plans.  The quickness of the President’s retort implied more than just a surface quibble, for the ramifications of this type of investment not only enriched Bain it also, under the guise of making a profit for those public retirement funds, made those funds inadvertently complicit in the losing of US jobs. 

    • Coastghost

      Yes, and, so? Obama spent hundreds of millions of dollars just to send Solyndra’s thousands of employees to the unemployment lines.

      • StilllHere

        And A123.

  • Jack Acme

    Maybe that guy who tried to blow up the fed had been watching too much Fox news.

    • toc1234

      ?????

  • Yar

    Two interesting points in the News this week, Billy Graham’s website removed Mormonism from their list of cults.
    And Ann Romney said:
    “He will not run again — nor will I do anything like that,” This was a very hard thing for me to decide to go forward again … for the family to have to go through this,”

    • Thinkin5

       Ann Romney thinks her husband is being persecuted! HA! Try being Mrs. Obama and listening to what the wingnuts are saying about her husband! Ann’s got it great compared to Michelle.

  • StilllHere

    From Sherman Bruchansky:  I have been following the Vallejo bankruptcy since it first occurred. My reading has informed me that there were no changes to police and firefighter pensions. They were and still are 90% of final year’s salary and can begin as early as age 50. Obviously, much overtime is worked in that final year to enhance the pension to over 100% of final pay. I have not seen where the cost of living increases were removed. This means that an officer can work 25 years, retire and collect 5 times or more in retirement than when they working. When I looked at this situation 3–4 years ago the average police officer was making $122,000 per year and the captains were over $200,000. As of this year the average police officer is costing the city $230,000 in salary and benefits and the average firefighter $211,000. For a city of 120,000 people this is unsustainable. Apparently another battle is looming with these unions, since this was not handled during the bankruptcy. As you well know, pensions like these are not available in the private sector under ERISA. The debtors vs. the unions litigation will be here again shortly. Apparently, many CA cities are in this same boat. I find it strange that private company pensions can be curtailed and terminated, but municipal pensions cannot be, or so the unions claim.

  • Middlepath11

    When Mr. Romney promotes a more imperial US world posture, I wonder if he imagines himself the American Putin. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       I doubt Romney will be more flexible after the election.

    • Thinkin5

       I think that Mitt should be King of the Cayman Islands. Perfect place for him.

  • StilllHere

    According to a member of Hillary’s inner circle to whom I have spoken, she and Bill Clinton assembled a team of legal experts a couple of weeks ago to determine how to handle the Benghazi debacle. The members of this team engaged in a lively debate over the best legal and political courses for her to take.
    Their chief goal was to avoid allowing Benghazi to become a permanent stain on Hillary’s reputation and hurt her chances to run for president in 2016…
    After the Clinton legal team had a chance to review the State Department cable traffic between Benghazi and Washington, the experts came to the conclusion that the cables proved that Hillary had in fact given specific instructions to beef up security in Libya, and that if those orders had been carried out — which they weren’t — they could conceivably have avoided the tragedy.
    Clearly, someone in the Obama administration dropped the ball — and the president was still insisting that it was not his fault… I am told by my sources that she firmly believes that when the State Department cable traffic is made public, either through leaks to the press or during formal House committee hearings, it will exonerate her and shift the blame for the entire mess onto the president…

    http://www.dailycaller.com

    • Thinkin5

      Let’s prosecute W. and Rice for “dropping the ball” on the BIG 9/11 while we’re at it.

      • Coastghost

        Keep going backwards: bin Laden did not greenlight KSM and the 9/11 attack until AFTER the failed cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan that Clinton ordered in August 1998. When it was found that Osama escaped unharmed, did Clinton intensify the search for bin Laden? No, he went after Milosevic, who posed no comparable threat to US interests at the time.

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    I’m not too keen on the “vote now” push.

    Sure, one might have decided on their presidential pick but there are many Federal House and Senate candidates not to mention State representative and local/city seats/ issues to be voted on. Those who do not vote “a party” may not have yet had time to see all the debates for those elections or all the arguments for and against a local issue.  

    • Steve__T

       Yes and people need to educate themselves on what is happening in their local districts and don’t be afraid to ask questions and make sure the get an answer they can live with. Don’t watch commercials ASK QUESTIONS and get at the truth, what is the incumbent record what is the oppositions stance what do they offer.

  • Michiganjf

    Inelegant phrasing???!!

    Romney concocted an ELABORATE LIE… this is what psychopathic, serial LIARS do!!!

    • TinaWrites

      You are SO RIGHT!!!  I’m surprised that anyone who has ever spent a lot of time dating — and/or anyone who has ever had a “nemesis” at work — cannot see this immediately — AND  F E E L  it, along with the icky, slippery feeling of what those people were like and how astounding their behavior was and can be!!

    • StilllHere

      I trust you know psychopaths from personal experience, but you don’t seem to have a good handle on the truth.

      • OnPointComments

        I have a Post-It note on my wall that says “Don’t reply to the comments made by the crazy people.”  I glance at it every time I read one of Michiganjf’s posts.

    • Steve__T

       You realize you just described our entire electorate?

  • toc1234

    Binders and Big Bird…. that’s really what the President is focusing on?  I guess he really does think his supporter are this shallow…  mayeb he is right…

    • Thinkin5

      The words binder and Big Bird are symbolic of how Mitt sees things. Cutting a relatively small budget item, PBS,  is a “big cut!” but a tax cut for the wealthy is a “insignificant amount”. It’s all about who benefits and who loses. PBS workers lose their jobs, no big deal, coal miners lose theirs, and it’s a catastrophe. Jobs are jobs and all people need them.

    • TinaWrites

      (GO TO: the next-to-the-last paragraph for your “Voucher to Escape Reading All This”, if you want!)

      Well, there’s a more optimistic way of letting yourself think about it.  If you want to do so, “Binders” winds up to be a reminder of another Romney lie, without the President of the United States having to go around saying that the other candidate for this esteemed position is a Liar (i.e., as you know, the Binders were not solicited by Romney and his crew, but were already prepared by women who were members of a proactive women’s group.  Yet, ROMNEY took credit for the preparedness that OTHER people really worked on!  UGHLY (sic))!!!  (I have no idea if the President knew about this during the Debate, but it may explain why he continues to talk about it??)
      And “Big Bird” might allow the President to remind people about  TWO of our most respected networks —    PBS and NPR! — without putting their actual NAMES in the crosshairs, since the Republicans ARE gunning for both?  We’ve all heard how both parties extract the verbiage used by their opponents in positive terms, and re-use those words, turning things around in a negative way!   Using the term “Big Bird” allows the President to nudge people into thinking about ALL the wonderful programming that PBS and NPR offer: pre-school alphabet and numbers education, science education for kids and adults, school-adjustment programming for pre-school kids, news and cultural programming, a showplace for experienced journalists and creative people working in video, film, dance, the visual arts, historic research and history par excellence, and so much more!  The Republicans don’t seem to want independent thinkers  of either gender who act proactively:  look at the fact that so many Republicans took Norquist’s pledge.  And then there is also ALEC booting Republicans into lock-step (tho I think they had an internal rebellion recently).  That’s a bunch of followers, not active individuals engaging with the issues of our times and with their constituents.  Republicans TELL their constituents what their constituents are to want:  how weird and on-backwards!  Whereas, PBS and NPR give us so much information to mull over; they give us multi-textured information that allows our thinking to often be mixed with important ideas from worlds other than our own and other than that of politics.  How are the Conservatives gonna get lock-step followers from that??!!  They’re not:  they’re gonna get people who start to think creatively and act proactively, which means we could have a lot of new paradigms and memes and new ideas about how to solve our problems.  The Oligarchs are much more comfortable pressing people into molds — so that we’ll follow THEIR program, which is:  what’s good for THEM!!  Faux News is a very important tool that they use for that.  I’m NOT a Big Bird expert, but I do know that his teddy bear was named …. RADAR!!  I’m pretty sure that that is a tool that most of today’s Republicans, today’s Conservatives, and the Oligarchs do NOT want us to have!And speaking of radar, this woman has certainly used a radar-like device to look backwards so that she could see into the future!  I still have to listen to the podcast from earlier in the week when Chrystia Freeland was the guest.  Her book is entitled, “Plutocrats:  The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else”.  An essay adapted from her book appeared in the NY Times on Sunday, Oct. 14.  She explains the economically  Inclusive State of Venice, starting in the early 14th century, and the Extractive State of later Venice, and THEN compares the economic trajectory between INCLUSIVE STATE and EXTRACTIVE STATE to ….  the prosperous Inclusive periods of economic growth in the United States and then to the Extractive period of the U.S. economy when things “are controlled by ruling elites whose objective is to extract as much wealth as they can from the rest of society.  Inclusive states give everyone access to economic opportunity; often, greater inclusiveness creates more prosperity, which creates an incentive for ever greater inclusiveness….Elites that have prospered from Inclusive systems can be tempted to pull up the ladder they climbed to the top.  Eventually, their societies become Extractive and their economies languish.  That was the future predicted by Karl Marx, who wrote that capitalism contained the seeds of its own  destruction.”  THIS PERIOD OF PULLING UP THE LADDER WAS CALLED BY THE VENETIANS “La Serrata, or the closure.”  THIS IS WHERE WE ARE NOW WITH OUR ECONOMY.Perhaps it can be hard to picture Big Bird and the Women in the Binders going up against the Oligarchs, the Elites.  But the LADDER concept is very easy to grasp.  I think that it will just take some time, and some fleshing out of the metaphors, before we all understand the pernicious forces that Big Bird and the Women in Binders are fighting against– as the metaphorical representations of us, the 98%!!As I said, I didn’t get to hear the full show with Ms. Freeland, nor have I quite finished the NY Times article; and I must read the full book. When I do, I will be interested to see whether the author includes the historical actuality of this fact: the North American  Colonies and then the United States itself experienced great economic growth due to acquiring (in various ways, mostly nefarious) Native American land, and by being built up on a SLAVE ECONOMY (almost “global” in scope).  Not only did our Slave Economy reject being a truly  INCLUSIVE STATE (and there is not a better way to understand an EXTRACTIVE STATE than to think about Slave Labor and Jim Crow Black wages, than to think about the U.S. Slave Economy, Sharecropping, and Peonage ["Slavery by Another Name, by Blackmon]), but  then Jim Crow did not even end until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965!  I personally believe that our “new brand” of Oligarchs “moved in” on the situation right then — in 1965.  And for those people who believe, as I do, that the Systemic Racism of today STILL makes the U.S. FAR LESS THAN AN INCLUSIVE STATE, there is even more to talk about, including, as I think I did a few weeks ago, how inadequate  governmental and private investment in our poorest neighborhoods (including investing in enough GOOD schools!!!) promotes higher crime in those neighborhoods, thus provoking more incarceration from those neighborhoods, to the profit-making joy (how wretched!) of our Private Prison Systems!  Nowhere have I seen any research on this next part (I’m certainly not an expert on this), but my hunch is that ONE reason why the NRA is so gun(g)-ho about letting the worst weapons be perfectly legal, is that it gets those who are disadvantaged into even greater trouble with the law, thus ADVANTAGING the bottom-lines of the Private Prisons!!!  (Just a chills-me-to-the-bones hunch, as I said!)So, these are just a few of the issues that Big Bird and the Women in Binders are up against.  One is a much Beloved character and image, and the other is a Brand New Funny image!  I’m hoping that those attributes will help people stick with this fight:  at least these memes are not themselves toxic to spend time around!And, I have only implied that all of this applies, certainly, to the evisceration of America’s middle class!!I DO agree with you, though, about the President’s delivery of his messages — at least what we hear of his delivery after the networks have chosen what part is extracted for the viewers/listeners.  I think he got so boxed in, early on in his first term:  as if he were — God help us! — “an educated elite”!!  (We seem to worship our wealthy elite and hope to be more like them, while at the same time detesting our educated elite, even when that means, in some cases, that the child of working class parents completed college!!  Do we want to LOOK AT THIS???)  I DO wish he would spend more of his time explaining to us the rationale of his programs and decisions (without compromising national security — which he WILL be accused of, as soon as he DOES do any explaining.)  I don’t think, though, that he is necessarily a publicly verbal leader.  I’m guessing that he leads in a Socratic way when he is working with his staff, and then “leads” by not letting it all sit in the air, as words only, but by assigning and getting things done.  I’m guessing that he either naturally inclines toward, or learned he had to motion toward, a philosophy of, “Never Complain, Never Explain.”  For the Republicans’ teeth come out — sharpened even! — when he does EITHER!!  My dad often used that quoted phrase.  I always felt somewhat unsure as to the rationale at the foundation of some of my parents’ decisions.  But my dad and mom, acted in concert, and they did give us a very stable family life even tho my father was not a Chatty Cathy; and my brother and I did not have to deal with, or deal in, issues that were beyond our years; also, the admonition was TO us as well as AT us (guess I didn’t listen!).  I will “complain” now, tho, and say that I, personally, would have benefitted from more explanations.  But, you know what?  THAT feeling makes me recognize both the gaps of understanding that that kind of leadership can foster; while at the same time, it lets me recognize that particular different KIND of leadership style AS a “leadership style” — one which I can trust creates a stable foundation, even as it avoids the High Bravura “I’m in Charge Here” style of a Romney.  Romney often suggests that Obama is NOT a leader and that he has NO plan.  I just see a different kind of leadership style!  Do you?  Do others?  Does it all come down to how we heard our parents?That said, I was very disappointed to find out that President Obama was NOT talking about “Change” toward the Left (like the Social-Democracies of Scandinavia, but not including Iceland).  To find out that his “Change” was about greater bi-partisanship was very disheartening.  BUT:  he is still not a Crazy-maker (an “etch-a-sketch”).  He said during the second Debate that ‘you can trust that I’ll do what I say I will.’  Except for the stonewall put up by the Republicans blocking him from doing almost anything except what he could do by executive order, I think this has proven to be true.  I’m guessing that those things he didn’t get to, he’ll tackle in Term II.  I HOPE that he gets the chance!!!(Here’s the Voucher)  I often apologize for the length of my pieces, but this time, I REALLY apologize — this is way too long, but I don’t know how to shorten it and say what I want to say.  You are completely forgiven if you don’t even want to go near it!!!  I HOPE that the paragraphs hold up:  I use them, but they often disappear when I hit ‘send’.  Thanks so much!Oh, when you wondered whether a lot of voters ARE “shallow”…. Sadly, when interviewed, it often seems that they are.  Again, we don’t know how much of what they actually said was edited out from what we heard!  But too many people fall for Romney’s “I know how to create jobs.  I’ll create jobs!”  And even more people say about Romney that he LOOKS and SOUNDS “presidential”.  Yes!  Shallow is a very real possibility!!! But, maybe these voters are working long hours, taking care of kids and ill parents.  But, I always suspect “Faux News” is on in the household when I hear comments like the ones I’ve just mimicked (I hope WITHOUT a tone of ridicule)…..

      • TinaWrites

        Yup!!! My paragraphs got LOST!  They make it so much easier to read.  I even hit Return 3 times, but only managed to retain ONE paragraph separation!  WEBMASTER:  please help!!!  Thanks!

        • Don_B1

          If you are signed in to Disqus, where all the other posts have a ‘Like” button, you should have an “Edit” button.

          If you do, by clicking the “Edit” you can get to an, unfortunately small, box where you can edit your post.

          Once you get there, you can use the Arrow keys to move line-by-line or letter-by-letter through your post. When you find the places where Disqus deleted your “Return” characters, often where the “period” of the previous sentence is followed by the start of the next sentence without a space (often fairly visually different so it jumps at you).

          Once you get there, enter a couple “Returns” and Disqus should obey them when you “Save” the edit. Then go on to the next place where a paragraph should start.

          Hopefully that will be of help.

  • SomMom

    Romney was probably reaching out to hire women as Mass. governor because he had been facing charges of mistreating women — He had pushed Acting Governor Jane Swift out of the way as the Republican candidate for governor and been criticized by women for treating her the way he did. 

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Running on fumes vs. the sketchy deal?  When are we going to get tired of this foolishness and run good candidates for office?

    • Steve__T

       When indeed, maybe when we make it illegal to take excessive donations from corps and the rich to fund their campaigns. When the playing field is level for the average American to actually run? When Americans demand better and wake up to the truth that politicians LIE if their mouth is open?  Call me dreamer

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Once again, the claim that money these days is ruining politics.  You have an Internet connection.  You can find out anything that you need to know about candidates for just about every office.  The problem is not the money.  It’s the fact that most voters are too lazy to do their homework.

        • Steve__T

           When a rep gets elected his job is to protect and legislate for his constituents, but the lobbyist are able to convince him through huge donations to his re-election that he should do what they want. Because he does not want that money to go to his opposition. And as history has shown lately, they do what the lobbyist want. That my friend is how money talks and voters lose.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             That’s why we have elections.  Any politician who goes against the will of the voters can lose office.  Don’t take responsibility away from where it belongs:  voters.

        • Steve__T

           You do know what a super-Pac is?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Yes, I do.  So what?  Once again, put responsibility where it belongs:  the voter.  Anyone with a library card or a home Internet connection can research the candidates without reference to the ads.

  • TinaWrites

    What Nerve!!!  What Weirdness!!!  HOW could Governor Romney state that “President Obama never did anything for WOMEN” when one of the VERY FIRST THINGS THE PRESIDENT DID was to SIGN THE LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT, on January 29, 2009 — soon after he was first seated in the Oval Office??!!! 

    The Nerve is saying this DURING the debate!
    The Weirdness is continuing to say it AFTER the debate!!  DOES ROMNEY THINK WE ARE DUMB???!!!!!

    Romney does what he accused his sons of doing:  he says something is true over and over and over, expecting that people will eventually start believing him and even quoting him (as Faux News listeners DO!!).  Weird behavior for a grown adult!!!!! 

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       That’s thin.  It’s a law designed to change the length of time that a person can file a lawsuit, and it didn’t pass the Senate.

      • Don_B1

        Obama SIGNED the Lily Ledbetter Act into LAW! !

        It will be a revelation to all Constitutional Law professors and the Supreme Court jurists that a president can sign a bill into law that has not passed BOTH the House and Senate! Get out the textbooks for revision!

    • Thinkin5

      Mitt also advocated firing teachers who are mostly women. Then acts like he’s their champion! Very two-faced.

    • Gregg Smith

      The law has nothing to do with equal pay or women.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Amazing!!

    Romney gets criticized for keeping a campaign promise to hire women to his cabinet including his Lt. Gov and chief of staff – both women.

    Obama gets a pass on campaign promises left and right.

    The Obama WH is called a ‘hostile workplace’ by ex-staffers:

    ‘I felt like a piece of meat,’ Christina
    Romer, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers, said of one
    meeting with Summers.http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Anita-Dunn

    • Government_Banking_Serf

      Summers is a technocratic, unaccountable benevolent dictator hero of the financial elite and naive left who want to work with them.

      How dare you pick on the savior.

      • StilllHere

        and Obama’s choice, but the buck stops at his secretary.

    • Don_B1

      Romney is NOT, repeat NOT, being criticized for hiring women, he is being criticized for mischaracterizing WHY and what set in motion, the process in which he hired women for his cabinet.

      It was a WOMEN’s group that pressed each candidate to promise to use a list of qualified women as well as others in their selection process for cabinet officers. Romney did not, as he claimed, just look around and see the lack of women in the lists used for selecting cabinet officers.

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    After decades of pure BS coming from the 2 parties, Jack is now concerned that people view what they say as “contentless” or of no intellectual value?

    Seems like a very rational response.

  • Outside_of_the_Box

    Regarding the so-called bomb plot, most of what I have seen recently is sting operations which often encourage the person (s) to develop, solidify, their otherwise rather vague ideas. So that they can later bust them and claim they have thwarted yet another “terrorist attack” on US soil. Don’t you think it’s odd, that given the complexity, the funding, the massive intelligence, that went into 9/11, that nothing even remotely similar has even hatched in the 12 years following? Is US intelligence that good, or is there far less of a threat from Islamist terrorists than was first imagined/propogated?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    Look at Romney tax returns for the past 2 years – it doesn’t look like Obama policies have hurt him much.

    • Thinkin5

       When the stock market is this high, historically, the president will be re-elected.
      In an e-mail Monday, Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, emphasized that he actually expects the economy to remain on about the same path regardless of who is elected:
      The forecast is agnostic with regard to who is elected in November.  The key assumption is that whoever wins they will reasonably gracefully address the fiscal cliff, increase the Treasury debt ceiling without major incident, and achieve something close to fiscal sustainability.

      My view, is that the economy’s fundamentals are much improved, as households deleverage, the financial system re-capitalizes, and American businesses become global competitive.  Moreover, the construction cycle is on the verge of turning up significantly, which by itself will create a boat load of jobs, particularly in 2014-15.  If policymakers can get it roughly right soon after election, all of this will shine through quickly.

      • anamaria23

        Yes  and Gov Romney can only benefit from the  work of  the Obama administration which is in the right direction.

  • Ellen Dibble

    The fiscal debt/cliff.  Someone had posted on Fb that he’s ever more convinced that Obama is the “man with a plan,” and I “liked” it because I agree; I have enough experience in this fiscal reality to know that a “plan” has to accommodate a lot of bumps in the road, and that you need to make provisions for possibilities (investments, risks), and new directions (enterprises), and bumps of greater severity, all that, and that this requires an exceedingly steady hand on the wheel, or whatever it is.  Looking at Obama dealing with a recalcitrant Congress (!) and an economy with a kind of millstone of underwater housing and retirees floundering and businesses cutting back on workforce — that is one heck of a steady hand, and one heck of a steady vision, and a plan that can’t be washed overboard.  Sorry for the mixed metaphors, but I can definitely say I am sure that’s what our economy is doing.  After a while, the riptide will wane, weaken, and there will be a kind of lift from the strengths in our economy that we’ve been adapting and cultivating.  Please let it continue. (The punchline of this post is that I’m beginning to think the “man with a plan” was meant to be a joke.)

    • Don_B1

      The major obstacle that either Obama or Romney will face, from internal sources, will be the Tea/Republicans in Congress who want to impose (ram down our throats?) harsh austerity in the name of deficit reduction/smaller government. If they do it as they talk they will certainly throw the U.S. (and the world) into another recession (wait — the Eurozone is already in a double-dip recession from its own drive for austerity), which will be much harder to recover from than the past one.

      Please see the two recent articles in Bloomberg by Reinhart and Rogoff on systemic financial crises and why the recovery after one is MUCH longer than inflation-driven recessions (where the central bank raises interest rates to dampen down inflation, like Paul Volcker did in the 1982-83 Reagan recession that Romney deliberately falsely claimed was a parallel event to the 2007-2009 Bush “Great Recession” [Great Contraction]). I have posted links above or Google should lead you to them. Rogoff and Reinhart also have a book, “It’s Different This Time,” which will give you more than you want to know. The one thing they don’t fully support is the effectiveness of stimulus to drive a quicker recovery, but the example of how well the underpowered ARRA worked should give some confidence that a bit more stimulus would bring a rapid (12 to 18 months) recovery to a near normal economy.

      And read Michael Grunwald’s book, “The New New Deal,”  for why the ARRA was effective and how well the Obama/Biden administration implemented it with next to no big false steps. It is a demonstration of GOOD government in action.

  • Yar

    Mitt Romney did not say he would not cut taxes on the rich.  Here is what he said. “The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects. So that’ll stay the same.”
    This is far different than saying I won’t cut taxes paid by the rich.  For example a VAT which replaces  income tax would raise taxes on the middle class and still keep Romney’s pledge.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Do you really think that would fly?

      What do you think about the changes to Obama’s stump speech where he only talks about not raising middle class income taxes in 2013 only — leaving 2014 and beyond open to tax hikes?

  • AaronNM

    This “no plan” meme being tossed out by the MSM is farcical. A policy can take years to take effect, and given that Obama faced utterly intractable opposition from Republican obstructionism, most of what the President was able to pass was done piecemeal and unilateral. That is NOT his fault. When Mitch McConnell says outright that the top priority of the Republican congressional members would be to ensure a one-term presidency for Obama, that MUST be the first consideration of any legitimate analysis. The buck may stop with the president, but it has to get to his desk first.

    • Coastghost

      “The buck may stop with the president, but it has to get to his desk first.” –Send that memo to the State Department, would you?

    • William

       He did not get a budget passed in 3 years. That indicates a lack of concern and dedication to his job on his part.

      • Thinkin5

         Also indicative of the TeaCons obstructionist moves.

      • AaronNM

        How would he have done that without the cooperation (re good-faith negotiation) from an intransigent Republican House and filibuster-happy Senate? Please explain. One side was willing to negotiate, the other was calling him a “socialist” and doing everything in their power to ensure he failed. That’s certainly not the kind of democracy I grew up with.

      • StilllHere

        Even his own party wouldn’t support them.

  • Coastghost

    Yes, the US journalism establishment did one FINE job looking over Obama’s narrative resume, with all its embellishments and misrepresentations. (David Maraniss still hasn’t been invited to “On Point”, has he?)

    • AaronNM

      Are you joking? EVERYTHING was reported on, fed to the MSM first by the Clinton campaign and then regurgitated and amped up by McCain.

      • Coastghost

        Apparently not, otherwise, Maraniss would not have been shelved by the MSM since his book came out in the spring.

        • AaronNM

          Maraniss’s book is an encyclopedic look into the man’s background without any political agenda. That’s what makes me suspect your judgement is based not on that book but on some right-wing interpretation sourcing the book but taking details completely out of context. Probably Dinesh D’Souza. You’re acting as though there’s some nefarious details Maraniss brings to light when, in fact, nothing in his book suggests anything of the sort.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Obama has done a consistently bad job of selling his program.  That’s why we are wondering what he’d do with a second term.

    • spencercmc

      I think that’s absolutely right.  I just watched a CSPAN BookTV vid last night on Michael Grunwald’s book The New New Deal.  The Obama administration did a PITIFUL job selling almost everything.  The fact that they were so bad actually gives me pause.  In many ways, selling your policies is THE job.

      • Don_B1

        Obama has admitted that he did not do enough to “sell” his policies. But if you remember, he did make quite a number of speeches in the first six months of his term, and seemed to get a even more “pushback” after each one as the Republicans firmed up their obstructionist approach to building their campaign attach that you see full-throat now.

        1) The ARRA (stimulus) was only implemented so early (less than 30 days into his administration) because Sen. Arlen Specter (R, PA) saw that a big stimulus would be NECESSARY to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression, and the Senators from Maine, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, joined in voting for it because Sen. Specter would not “cross over” the party divide alone.

        2) One of the biggest messages of Michael Grunwald’s book is the fact that the IMPLEMENTATION of the ARRA was the most effective, particularly when its complexity is taken into account, of any government law in decades, and that needs to be really appreciated.

        3) Certainly Obama should have done a better “selling” job, but as the time passed in his administration, he found that ANYTHING he took to the American people became something that the Republicans would automatically oppose.

        a) As soon as the summer came, the Republicans came out hot and heavy talking ONLY about the deficit, which has never polled that high in the list of concerns of the general voter, but it captured the attention of the Press, which again has failed to explain, what the real economic priorities should be, either from the views of the people or what economists should be discussing.

        b) Some very influential economists HAVE taken opposing sides, some throwing away what was learned from the Great Depression to support the Republican Party’s approach that “stimulus” does not work, except when it is tax cuts (the least effective type) or military spending (15 more ships per year for the Navy, etc.).

        c) In much less dire economic conditions, Republicans have advocated strongly for stimulus spending, in particular Representative Paul Ryan (R, WI) in 2002; see Rep. Ryan’s Valentine to the effectiveness of stimulus at the 1 hour, 27 minute and 27 second and 3 hour, 48 minute and 5 second marks of the C-SPAN video from 14 February 2002:

        http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/168695-1Whatever Obama’s “messaging failures” and they certainly exist, the fact that most of his approaches have INCLUDED Republican ideas if not garnering Republican support, should tell people that the failure of the economy to strongly recover is more about Republican campaign deceptions than Obama’s failures.But also consider the facts of this Bush Recession, as explained by Reinhart and Rogoff in their big book, “It’s Different This Time,” and several pieces in Bloomberg:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/sorry-u-s-recoveries-really-aren-t-different.htmland:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-16/reinhart-rogoff-say-romney-advisers-understate-crisis-severity.htmlAlso, consider what a Romney presidency will do for the plutocrats and NOT do for the middle class. The growing inequality of the American worker, with a complex and not fully fleshed out set of causes, will NOT be even slowed, not to mention reversed, by the tax cuts for the rich approach of the Republicans and their penchant for regulation removal which will inflict the pollution that has been removed and that which needs to be restricted, on those people least able to avoid and/or deal with it.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Was Obama’s healthcare proposal (taking over 17% of the economy) put under the same microscope in 2008?

    His major promise was to be against the individual mandate.

    Obamacare is based on the individual mandate AND is also 2800 pages of bureaucratic crap.
     

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Someone please teach those children that there are other options than the Democans and the Republicrats.

    • Steve__T

       They can’t go around telling kids they have other choices what are you some kind of American that wants a choice sheep don’t get choices they do what they are told.

    • Don_B1

      Many find that the “divide” between parties began with the 1984 Reagan reelection campaign where Reagan had a huge money advantage and at least some Democrats vowed never to let that happen again. Their view was that they had to support more “business-friendly” (less regulation, lower taxes, etc.) which has led to less differentiation between the parties.

      But while it would be nice to think that enough people would vote for a third party for it to win, that just does not appear to be in the cards.

      Thus the solution is not voting for third-party candidates but working to change the way campaigns are financed. Lawrence Lessig of Harvard has started an effort to do just that. It will not be easy but show me that it won’t be easier than electing enough third-party candidates to make a difference.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         You’re just shifting the blame.  Voters are solely responsible for learning about the candidates.  They are solely responsible for the candidates that we’re offered.

        • Don_B1

          I did not deal with who bears the ultimate responsibility; I was attempting to trace out a path whereby the system can be returned to something more responsive to all Americans.

          To some extent, the reason the American voter does not “take responsibility” is that they do not know how, which is a failure of our education system. And that is largely a refusal by those with the money to do something about it to act on that prime need.

          The general American voter just bemoans the lack of candidates that reflect their concerns, but do not have the time or inclination to work to change that. One way that the workers could do that in the past was through unions, which provide the education on the relevant issues that affect their lives, but the big business class has waged an effective war against unions. I should have mentioned how that was an important part of why this country is only discussing issues that reflect the interests of the rich.

          But just voting for a “third party” candidate in the general election is not a way to get better candidates; most third party candidates do not represent a “qualified” approach to governing, where they have the experience to know how to deal with all the issues that a president will have to deal with, at least beyond their particular issue.

          Finally, for a much better elucidation of the current failure of the campaign season to deal with important issues, see:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/politics-corruption_b_1997446.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=102212&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

  • divine582

    Most elections end up being the choice between the lesser of two “evils”. Governor Romney has made it crystal clear that Obama is the only choice.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       If true, that’s a sad commentary on our country.

    • Gregg Smith

      The question is who is best for the Country at this time in these circumstances. It’s not about choosing evil.

  • Ellen Dibble

    About Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, the young man from Bangladesh who tried to bomb the Federal Reserve in New York:  This is the second one I’ve read about who has apparently been radicalized in the USA.  Another modest, serious student who somehow spins off into extremism.  The other happened in Boston.  This one somewhere near New York City.  So do we have issues of young people being vulnerable to gangs, cults, so on and so forth?  Instead of falling in love, they fall in hate?  What is it?

    • OnPointComments

      It sure seems that we have issues of young people being vulnerable to gangs and cults.  There was a piece on ABC News last night (with a follow up coming tonight) about the war zone that Chicago has become.  More Americans have been killed in Chicago this year than in Afghanistan.  Maybe the country should consider sending in the National Guard to protect the people in Chicago — no one should have to live in that environment.

      • StilllHere

        Obama’s Chief of Staff has it under control, they’re going to tax bullets!!  That’s the Democrats solution to everything!! One play in their book, LOL.

  • Coastghost

    “Not optimal”, Tom Ashbrook, just once? You’ve broached “binders of women” at least twice already . . . .

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Is Obama’s plan ‘optimal’?

  • LeonardNicodemo

    No, not impressed with the FBI “exposing” bomb plots. As always, they find messed up kids who would never have the means nor the guts to carry out anything and string them along all the way. They provide the money for the bombs, they have the recipe, and they force the issue when the suspect wavers. 

    • Steve__T

       I wouldn’t be surprised  if they bought his ticket and made sure his passport was stamped when he got here.

    • MarcusXH

      “they find messed up kids who would never have the means nor the guts to carry out anything and string them along all the way”

      Oh really? FBI is doing their job – preventing our citizens from getting hurt.

      If you’d rather have your government agencies turn a blind eye towards this sort of thing, then go ahead and leave the country.

      I’m ecstatic they caught another potential bomber.

  • cheatherton

    President Obama has spent 4yrs sweeping up for 8 failed years of W’s administration.  He does not need to change direction, he needs to hold on his positions.  Housing is coming back, unemployment is moving in the right direction. People have healthcare.
    This country needs the bigger discussion that Obama is trying to have. Where are our future jobs going to come from?  How do we develop an energy policy that does not rely on fossil fuels?  Romney has nothing new to say.  Who believes his agenda is any different than what we have seen. How does that not resonate with Americans?  Please someone here give me one new idea? Go ahead, give me a Reagan idea, then remember, we went into recession after his 8yrs too. 

  • Thinkin5

    The “binder” story that Mitt told was quite simply Mitt lying to take credit for looking for more women to hire. It was also an evasive move to not answer the question. It was about supporting equal pay for women! Another character flaw of Mitt’s. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      It was actually Mitt relating that he kept a campaign promise.

      How rare in today’s politics — you didn’t even recognize it.

      • Thinkin5

         That version is under fire by a coalition of women’s groups known as MassGAP, which is affiliated with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus. The group compiled the names of female applicants before Romney came to office and offered them to both Romney and his Democratic opponent Shannon O’Brien.

        “It didn’t really have anything to do with Romney asking women to give him names,” said Carolyn Jones, who was secretary of the Massachusetts Womens’ Political Caucus during the time that Romney was governor.

        MassGAP, which is non–partisan, issued a statement saying that while the Romney administration started with women comprising 42 percent of newly appointed positions, by 2006, that number had dropped to 25 percent.

        “So when the spotlight was on him, sure he paid some lip service. But when no one was looking, those levels plummeted to 25 percent, below where they were in the previous governor’s administration,” said Jesse Mermell, a Democratic selectwoman in Brookline, Mass., who was the executive director of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus from 2004 to 2008. During that time the organization commissioned a report on women in government positions in the state.

  • StilllHere

    Why does Obama pay women less than men in his administration?  He doesn’t walk the talk, probably because he hates women which would explain why he’s been conducting a war on them for 4 years.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

    Even if Romney were instrumental in getting some women good jobs on Beacon Hill, that doesn’t do anything for the millions of women in the workforce who will never be handpicked by a governor and continue to work under conditions that favor male salary earners.

    • StilllHere

      Like which.

    • Coastghost

      Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out that the so-called “gender-wage gap” is not that at all. “Gender-hours gap” does accurately name the phenomenon: full-time working women in the US earn .77 for every dollar earned by full-time working men because women in the US workforce cumulatively work fewer hours.

  • useyernoggin

    To last caller from Cedar Rapids: Obama’s policies did not put us in this recession.  The recession began under Bush.  Bush/Republican/Romney deregulation/taxbreaks-for-the-wealty/two unfunded wars/outsourcing policies over the last 30 years did. Clinton fixed Reagan/BushSr’s economic wrecking balls.  Clinton handed Bush a terrific U.S. economy. Bush wrecked it within a year.  Do some research.  Use your head.

    • StilllHere

      Clearly, Congressional policies put in place after Democrats took control in 06 were responsible, use your noggin!

      • Ray in VT

        You really nailed it.  The Democrats managed to create and fuel a housing bubble, create “innovative financial instruments” like CDOs, get banks highly over leveraged and get Americans to run up high rates of personal debt, among other things, between when they took over Congress in January of 2007 and when job numbers started to go negative in July of that year.  They are truly an all powerful party.

        • StilllHere

          Welcome to the real world Ray, we’ve been waiting for you to show up.

          • Ray in VT

            I’ve been living in the real world for quite some time.  So what is your comment supposed to mean?  Are you suggesting the my sarcasm is your genuine perception.  Please elaborate.

          • StilllHere

            Don’t try to hide behind calling it sarcasm, deep down, it’s what you believe, it’s what you know is true.  The first step to the solution is to admit you’ve got a problem.  You’ve come a long way, Ray, and I’m proud of you!

          • Ray in VT

            Quite frankly, it would not surprise me if you really believed it.  It’s the sort of simplistic nonsense that seems about right for you.

          • StilllHere

            I can sense that you’re at war with yourself so I’ll let you be for now.  Cheers.

          • Ray in VT

            Not at all.  I am quite at peace with my life, the decisions that have brought me to where I am and my view of the world.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Use your head.

      Bush inherited the internet bubble collapse from Clinton and then we suffered 9-11 which almost tanked our economy.

      • Steve__T

         I love revisionist history got anymore  fairy tails?

  • Davesix6

    The Press, especially the “big three” ABC, NBC, CBS, have absolutely not held President Obama accountable for “his” policies!

    President Obama took office with Democatic Party control of the House and the Senate. 

    President Obama has put forth no plan for the future of this country. 

    President Obama has a record of failed policies and therefore his entire re-election strategy has consisted of misinformation, distractions and personally attacking Mitt Romney. 

    I believe Romney will aggressively move this nation back towards prosperity, and away from, as he put it the “Trickle down Government” philosophy of the so-called progressive left!

  • StilllHere

    Tom, foreign policy question, how many deaths is optimal?

    • Thinkin5

      Jon Stewart used that word in his question to Pres. Obama so he answered with it. Not an issue.

      • StilllHere

        I bet you wish that was true!  It’s just so emblematic of this whole failed presidency that just keeps getting worse for America.

      • OnPointComments

        Killed in Benghazi, Libya:  Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith.
         
        The president made a statement, then jetted off to Las Vegas for a fund raiser.  Then for two weeks, the Obama administration told the country it was spontaneous and about a video, even to the point of running commercials in the mideast to apologize.
         
        Later on “60 minutes”, President Obama described the four dead Americans as “bumps in the road.”
         
        Yesterday, Jon Stewart asked if the administration’s response to Benghazi was optimal, and the president replied “If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.”  Not the response, the Americans getting killed was not optimal.
         
        The attack in Benghazi is like other scandals in that it is the coverup that has become the bigger political problem.

        • StilllHere

          Gotcha, sub-optimal bumps in the road.

  • StilllHere

    Tom, domestic policy question, how many deaths is optimal?

  • StilllHere

    Tom, golf question, how many deaths is optimal?

  • SKBoston

     In response to the woman who called from her car:

    This is how we got here:

    1) two wars
    2) continuous tax cuts
    3) excessive use of filibusters
    4) congress and senate determined to undermine at every turn

     - all during the worst financial crisis since the depression. 

    • OnPointComments

      Do you know in which year the US Government had its highest revenues?  2007, years after the Bush tax cuts were in effect.  The problem is spending, not insufficient revenues.

    • Thinkin5

       And don’t forget deregulation! Big mistake and Romney wants it back, or not, depending on which group he’s talking to.

    • Gregg Smith

      So 4 consecutive trillion dollar deficits, a new war, a surge in an ongoing war, the tripling of the price of Obamacare, $46 billion/year in new regulations on business, money down a rathole with the “stimulus”, rising fuel prices, rising medical cost and a President who can’t even pass a budget have zip zero nada to do with squat? Gothcha’.

  • http://twitter.com/BostonMark13 Mark

    The only thing genuine about Mitt Romney is his insincerity.  The “Binders” comment in itself would be no big deal.  But people understand that “binders full of women” is a metaphor for how Romney views both women and men of the 47%—– as commodities who can be bought, sold, and shipped overseas.  

    • Government_Banking_Serf

      Kind of like how the Dem’s view the population as “Cattle” to be managed and husbanded?

      Which is more cynical? Using a binder to achieve more equality or believing the masses are too stupid to actually govern themselves and exercise freedom?

      • OnPointComments

        “The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows.  All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running.  That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats.  With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.” 
        –James Carville, Democratic Party consultant

        • Government_Banking_Serf

          Is that for real? Hilarious.

        • nj_v2

          More hackery from the forum’s wing-ding clown posse.

          What a contemptible bunch you are.

          http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/carville.asp

          “Probably False…We have as yet found no news article, speech, interview transcript, or printed source documenting this statement as on actually made by James Carville.”

      • Thinkin5

        believing the masses are too stupid to actually govern themselves and exercise freedom? I think we both know that the Repcons have this belief or they wouldn’t keep trying to block people from voting and legislating away individual rights like abortion, right to die, gay marriage, and insisting that we all pray and put “God” on every public document etc. The Repcons insist that their “values” be legislated.

        • Government_Banking_Serf

          You really think state’s rights or true libertarian views (pro choice to me) of making choices on these issues is MORE dictatorial than using the power of the Federal Government to enact the positions of “liberals” upon everybody?

          Face it, you just can’t accept the diversity of views and want the power to legislate “enlightened” values.

          That’s cowardly. If views are truly “enlightened” they will increase in popularity over the test of time, and freely choosing individuals will tend toward them.

          Not having the patience or tolerance to wait for that, is the downfall that then enables the empowering of elite classes that corrupt and rig the system time after time. Might be your guys one round, but will be the other guys the next. Both are wrong.

        • Steve__T

           Righty lefty both are complicit in undermining our laws and civil liberties.

      • http://twitter.com/BostonMark13 Mark

        Let’s face it, much of America is stupid.  Second, it’s not the Dems that are cattle. It’s the nightly migration of the herd to fox news looking to be sheparded by bill o’reilly and sean hannity, who could more accurately be described as “cattle.”

        • StilllHere

          Ha, thanks for recognizing your own shortcomings but I think I’ll trust Carville’s insight into Democrats more than yours into Republicans; but nice try for a dumb guy.

          • http://twitter.com/BostonMark13 Mark

            Are you even the slightest bit literate?  The non sequiturs are amusing.

        • notafeminista

          And that folks, is how one wins hearts and minds.  Call ‘em stupid.

          BTW its “shepherded” – remove the beam in thine own eye before tending to the mote in mine. 

        • Steve__T

           Chat-tel would be more apropos.

      • J__o__h__n

        Stop confusing your scorn for people supposedly less enlightened than yourself with the views of the Democratic party. 

        • Government_Banking_Serf

          That makes no sense. I’m the one arguing against enabling the “enlightened” to rule the rest.

          If the wisdom of the founding notions for this country is what you mean by my “enlightenment”, then I see why you are confused.

          You are fine when the “right” people have the power. Hence my Benevolent Dictatorship comments, which are quite apt.

          I argue against too much concentrated power and control by anyone, and more to the people.  Yes, that may require more tolerance from all you smarty pants, know-better types, but that is the cost of individual liberty.

          We already know you see no value in that, and hence are eager to hand it off to Larry Summers types.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Funny how sincere Mitt sounded when talking about the 47% at that fundraiser.

      I literally didn’t know that he had such conviction in his voice, such assuredness reflected in his delivery, until seeing that video.

      • Steve__T

         He sounded just as sincere when he said I care about 100% of the people. Just like all politicians if their mouth is open they are probably telling a lie.

  • nj_v2

    Posterior Sphincter Department:

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/19/1046711/romney-tax-study-repeal/

    Romney Cites Study Based On Repealing Almost All Middle Class Tax Breaks To Bolster His Tax Plan

    http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza#

    “But Romney has done a good job of concealing, until now, the fact that he and his wife, Ann, personally gained at least $15.3 million from the bailout—and a few of Romney’s most important Wall Street donors made more than $4 billion. Their gains, and the Romneys’, were astronomical—more than 3,000 percent on their investment.”

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romney-bosses-should-tell-employees-how-to-vote.html

    Romney Caught Encouraging Business Owners to Tell Employees How to VoteMore from the 47% video…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXpZpmNjkxM&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video

    Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video
    Mocking immigration in the United States: 

    “[If] you have no skill or experience…you’re welcome to cross the border and stay here for the rest of your life.”On the easy dividends of his anticipated election victory: “we’ll see—without actually doing anything—we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.”

    Envisioning a pre-election foreign policy crisis: “If something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.”

    Claiming that the Fed is buying “three-quarters of the debt that America issues.”(Which, despite Romney’s expertise in finance, is plain wrong.)

    Joking about media strategy and his reputation as a “rich, rich guy”: “You know that I’m as poor as a church mouse.”Making enemies on the late-night talk show circuit: “Now Letterman hates me because I’ve been on Leno more than him.”

    An odd rant from an audience member: “How are you going to win if 54 percent of the voters think China’s economy is bigger than ours? Or if it costs 4 cents to make a penny and we keep making pennies? Canada got it right a month ago. Why isn’t someone saying, ‘Stop making pennies, round it to the nearest nickel?’ You know, that’s an easy thing, compared to Iran.”

  • 228929292AABBB

    I work in finance so talking about money doesn’t bother me a
    bit, but it was shocking to me the direction our national debate has taken. I get that the economy is important, but this job these guys are
    trying so hard to get doesn’t make anyone swear on a bible unemployment will be
    X.Y percent it makes them swear to defend and uphold the Constitution.  In
    the last 10 years fully 40% of the bill rights has been gutted, begun by George
    Bush and, surprisingly, accelerated by President Obama.  Economic cycles
    come and go, but what America is (was) is being discarded and all anyone can
    talk about is China trade policy.  These guys are just representative of their
    democracy I guess.  As a people, we’re staring so hard at our 401K statements
    we’re missing the second ‘Dred Scott decision’ era of failure in our nation. Make fun of the candidates all you want but shame on us mostly for not demanding answers.  If we are to criticize President Obama for his failures in the last four years, it should be for a failure of humanity and justice, not ca$h.

    • Steve__T

       Very well said thanks for your post.

  • Ellen Dibble

    I am hearing about the African American man who said he had been enthusiastic but not now.  I am remembering how the crash hit us all, including the candidates, DURING the campaign in 2008.  The optimism of August then had zero place come inauguration day.  Expectations had to adapt to a new reality.  Apparently many Americans don’t realize what the bursting of a bubble, and a near financial collapse — well, collapse — what that means.  Or meant.  God bless ‘em.  It was rose-colored glasses that thought come November 2008 that the aspirations of a few months previous had any chance in the immediate future.  We’re still trying to get back to square one.

    • Gregg Smith

      That’s a level headed assumption but I’m of the firm belief it indeed could have all been well behind us by now. And should have been.

      • Ray in VT

        From what I have read from some current writers I don’t see a reason why we should have expected a quick recovery from the 2008 crash.  It certainly looks to be the historical case that this sort of crash takes quite a while to work out.

        • Gregg Smith

          As with my reply to Ms. Dibble, I don’t see a need to argue about it. I just wanted to balance her comment. I’ll just say I don’t think the data supports that and the “it could have been worse” argument sounds like a big hairy excuse to me. Some may disagree.

          • Ray in VT

            Many certainly will and do.  I think that if the situation had been left to itself the crash landing would have been much harsher than it was.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          I’ve seen that argument.  I’ve also seen the argument on the other side that debunks it. Don’t you love soft sciences like economics?  You can say whatever you want.

          It is clear to me things could of been much better if structural reforms were instituted instead of things that dampen economic activity — like Obamacare.

          Some of this is unfair since it is hindsight.  I think team Obama thought they were out of the woods when they were promoting recovery summer in 2010.

          Remember when we were told that the $90B government ‘green’ investments would result in 5M jobs?  I’m shocked that there isn’t much discussion about this failure.

           

          • Ray in VT

            That certainly is the problem with economics, among other such squishy sciences.  Sometimes I have co-workers ask me questions about stuff here at work, and they want a hard answer, but sometimes that hard answer just doesn’t exist.  It’s the way that it is sometimes, and some people really don’t like that sort of thing.

            I think that your comment about hindsight is pretty right on.  When things are going down (both as in happening and sinking), it can be hard to properly assess the situation, and when one can make a case for both sides of an issue, it makes it hard to pick the right path.

            I think that a lot of people thought that we were out of the woods in 2010, and at times since, but there are so many factors affecting the economy, both domestically and internationally, that are hard to gauge and predict, I don’t know how anyone can make hard claims about future growth.

            As for the green jobs, I did find this breakdown:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/04/a-closer-look-at-obamas-90-billion-for-clean-energy/

            I’m not sure how one might quantify how some of these initiatives might create jobs.  I think that some of these moves, like efficiency improvements, are likely to have very good long term effects, such as by lowering municipal or residential energy costs.  That may create some short term jobs, but I would imagine that many of the benefits would be somewhat invisible and stretched out over years.  I didn’t see it mentioned in the article, but I also read a reference to there having been a sizable sum of money for clean coal research in there.

        • Government_Banking_Serf

          What takes time is making sure all the criminals and rascals who brought on the crisis have their nests all re-feathered, and the “adjustments” that should organically occur via market forces are shifted away from the offending sectors and individuals, and onto the masses, where the game-riggers knew it would come to all along.

          A real free market, no big too fail, skin in the game etc. would have crushed the perpetrators.  Not so our State Capitalism embraced by the mainstream parties.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that your comments do have some real points in there.  I think that we could have acted to avoid the worst case scenario and yet reformed the system, but we didn’t.  I think that one of the bad outcomes of the response to the crash has been greater consolidation in the banking industry, and the industry continues to spend tons of money lobbying Congress in order to avoid regulations and reforms.  At least one of the positive longer term outcomes of the Great Depression was that the banking industry was brought to heel in a way so as to reform some of the worst sort of practices and abuses that existed during the 1920s, and the industry was pretty stable, and profitable, for decades thereafter.  I think that a harder crash may have spurred that sort of action again, but at what cost?

          • Steve__T

             Possibly their loss and not ours as America on the whole, we bailed them out and they kicked us in the teeth by putting homeowners out, a lot who weren’t in default but their mortgages were tied in with the bad.

          • Government_Banking_Serf

            As the situation was delivered and “enacted” by Clinton and Bush appointees, with similar faith in elite, technocratic management of the economy, and using that control to cement political power at the expense of the American people’s real economy, that is  precisely why I support and raise the type of systemic and monetary criticisms that Ron Paul brings to the analysis of the crisis.

            The mainstream parties both share the same corrupt and flawed economic/monetary/central banking, State Capitalism, as opposed to Free Market Capitalism, that provide the groundwork for what happened. By naive accident, or Machiavellian design.

            Removal of Glass-Steagal type Rule of Law to protect people from concentrated power, is opposed by many rule of law libertarian types. (enter red herrings of libertarians = anarchists).

            With a Rule of Law foundation, the markets can then act freely within it, as opposed to being Discretionarily and Arbitrarily “managed” by unaccountable financial elites.

            No too big to fail, no bailouts. No Fannie/Freddie fuel on the fire, no Greenspan free money napalm on the fire.

            In an organic, natural free market, we may have small, spontaneous fires that burn themselves out, but when we try to control it, like our Forest Service practices, it just leads to massive conflagrations down the line.

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    The whole point is the question of whether the Obama administration played up the Demonstration angle, as a POLITICAL manipulation to maintain his perceived strong record vs. Terrorism as the election nears.

    • Thinkin5

       Look at the whole record and judge by that. I think Pres. Obama has been strong, measured, and strategic. I don’t fault him for one incident. I know he will correct and hunt down the killers and he won’t need the simpleton rhetoric that Mitt uses when he does it.

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        “Correct”? It wasn’t a mistake, it was a political calculation and conscious misrepresentation of the situation, which is unacceptable in a free society, and ironic, but not surprising, coming from the transparency in words only guy.

  • http://twitter.com/BostonMark13 Mark

    oh yeah, and with respect to how Romney views women- he takes the typical mormon approach where a woman is to be subservient to a man.  When given the opportunity to select a female running mate for Lt. Governor, Romney chose Kerry Healey.  The wife of another private equity guy who is worth at least as much as Romney himself. 

    • StilllHere

      Wow, you are such a misogynist, she was not just a wife; she had tons more accomplishments in life than you’ll ever have for sure. 

      • http://twitter.com/BostonMark13 Mark

        First, no I’m not a misogynist.  If I were a misogynist I would support Romney.  Second, I’m am plenty accomplished, thanks.  Finally, you missed the point entirely.  If Kerry Healey wasn’t rich, she would never had been chosen.  Don’t you think there are lots of accomplished women in Massachusetts without $200 million to their names?  

        • StilllHere

          Gotcha, you just hate rich women, so you’re an envious misogynist!

          • http://twitter.com/BostonMark13 Mark

            Yes, an envious misogynist. You’re brilliant.  I envy anybody who can make $200 million by putting out.

          • Ray in VT

            Isn’t that how John Kerry became super wealthy?

          • Ray in VT

            Oh, plus George Washington.  Martha was the one who had the big bucks when they got married.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             LOL

            GW was our richest President.

          • Ray in VT

            Is your LOL laughing at or with my comment?

            He came from some fairly modest origins, and while he made a lot of money on land speculation in Ohio a bit later in life, Martha had a ton of cash from her family/first marriage.  Also, later in life Washington did have some financial issues, in part because he/they owned too many slaves, as he refused to sell his slaves on his road to emancipating them.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             My LOL was WITH your comment.

            Isn’t it true that he grew the size of the estate dramatically?  Not bad for a guy who was busy fighting off the British and spending 8 years being our first President.

            His net worth in todays dollars is > $500M

          • Ray in VT

            I’m not sure how much he built it over the years.  Mount Vernon is pretty nice, and Washington had some very interesting agricultural innovations, but I’ve also heard/read that the quality of the land wasn’t that great, plus, like many Virginia planters, he got himself into some tight financial straights due to his purchases and the situation regarding trade with British merchants.

            I’m not sure how one would properly quantify how what he had then would translate to now.  I’m sure that some have done so.  Do you know of someone specifically that pegged him to 500mil?  I did just hear about a list of history’s richest people.  This isn’t it, but it’s another one.

            http://www.aneki.com/richest_history.html

          • WorriedfortheCountry
          • StilllHere

            I’m sure you could keep trying, maybe your taste in men isn’t very good.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Time to punch “envy of the rich” on your StillHere bingo card, Mark.

          • Ray in VT

            Can I get a “what part of the public sector do you work in” to complete my card?

          • StilllHere

            Unfortunately, it’s clear you couldn’t even get a job in the public sector. 

          • Ray in VT

            I’m doing quite well, thank you very much.  I’ve been gainfully employed at a number of quite successful companies over the years, and I’ve nearly always been recommended for promotions based upon my work.

            How’s the McJob going, anyways?  Are you in a sore mood today because they made you clean the bathrooms instead of cooking the fries yesterday?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Sorry, Ray, you’ll have to earn it, just like everyone else.

            Of course, being from Vermont gives you an advantage in this game anyway.

          • Ray in VT

            Can’t I just inherit it?

            I know, things are so terrible here in socialist Vermont.  Somehow we muddle along with one of the lowest state unemployment rates and a rising medium income.  I wish that we could only undo that somehow.

        • J__o__h__n

          Check the binder.

    • Gregg Smith

      Here’s what Anita Dunn said about working for Obama:

      “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. … Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/suskind-book-female-advisers-in-obama-white-house-sidelined-and-ignored/2011/09/16/gIQAAOSSXK_print.html

      Here’s what Christina Roemer said:

      “I felt like a piece of meat.”

      http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/10/17/war-on-women-maoist-and-obama-debate-coach-anita-dunn-complains-of-hostile-workplace-at-white-house/

      Janet Napolitano has a sexual harassment scandal of her own and Suzanne Barr had to resign.  Women are paid on average $11,000 less than men in Obama’s staff. And he has such a low regard for women’s intelligence he thinks he can convince them Republicans want to take away their contraception.

      • http://twitter.com/BostonMark13 Mark

        So much for staying on topic.  Be reminded:  It was Rick Santorum and the Republicans who raised this issue.  So don’t blame Obama for discussing it. 

        • Gregg Smith

          No, it was Obama who mandated Catholic institutions like Georgetown provide insurance that includes coverage of contraception. Somehow if Catholics didn’t want to buy rubbers against their tenets that meant Republican wanted to take away women’s contraception. It was crazy.

      • StilllHere

        Obama hates women!  It’s clear.  I feel bad for his daughters, Michelle looks like she can punch above her weight though.

      • Steve__T

         “Dunn declined to discuss the specifics of the book. But in an
        interview Friday she said she told Suskind “point blank” that the White
        House “was not a hostile environment.”“The president is someone
        who when he goes home at night he goes home to house full of very strong
        women,” Dunn added. “He values having strong women around him.”

        That’s from your article you linked to I know you think that no one reads  your links, so you pick out the BS, and what do you get when you read the whole thing a whole deference of opinion.

        Good try tho, by the way have you read the book?

        • Gregg Smith

          She said what she said. I didn’t make up the quote.

          “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. … Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

  • WardCheney

    One cannot ignore (though many choose to ignore or avoid) the calculated, deliberate, ultimately cynical strategy of Republicans who have blocked at every turn potential productive Democratic legislation and initiatives.

    If a Republican or Republican sympathizer, surrogate, or apologist says such is just blaming someone else, give me a break. That’s trying to get the general public to ignore or forget or confuse what really happened and who is responsible.

    Come on Republicans and Tea Party-ers, many of you are talking all the time about taking personal responsibility . . . own up to your (and your parties and representatives) responsibility for Congress, and President Obama, not getting a number of things done during the past four years.

    • Thinkin5

       We do have a public record of legislation and votes. Can’t hide the obstructionism. The right constantly voted opposite what the polls said the majority of the country wanted.

    • Gregg Smith

      What about all those jobs bills passed in the House that have never even been brought to a vote in the Senate? “Cut, Cap and Balance” would have prevented the downgrade in credit. It most likely would have passed the Senate if it was voted on. Reid couldn’t have that.

      What about two years of majorities? What about a takeover of 1/6th of the economy without a single Republican vote?

      The Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party is almost complete. They’ll save us.

      • J__o__h__n

        They weren’t jobs bills.  They were the same cut taxes and cut regulations that Republicans alway propose.  The Republican House didn’t pass any bills that they thought would be passed by the Senate.

        There wasn’t a real majority in the Senate thanks to McConnell making every vote need 60. 

        The Teabagger takeover is going to make the Republicans unelectable as well as making them unfit to govern. 

        • Gregg Smith

          Then why not vote on them, let them go down in flames, take away the issue and move on? Because many had enough Democrat support to pass forcing an Obama veto and all the blame that goes with it. 

          Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and many others were said to be unelectable during the primaries but they did fine. Establishment Republicans like Lugar are no longer viable. Oh yea, the takeover is happening, 2010 was historic. If you think they are unfit to govern, fine. You’re fixin’ to find out. We’ll see.

    • Coastghost

      Obama had his Democratic Senate and Democratic House from Inauguration Day 2009 through the 2010 election. Did he close Guantanamo Bay as he promised? No, because he misjudged political reality in making the promise to begin with, New Yorkers did not take well to his noble ideal that civilian courts in NYC could try the terrorists. Did he pass immigration reform? Not as I recall. Did he remain focused on the state of the economy, which by all accounts faced the most dire circumstances since the Great Depression? Well, not exactly, his ambition to fulfill mentor Ted Kennedy’s dreams sidetracked him a bit. In 2009 and 2010 Obama earned the mistrust he’s been greeted with since the 2010 election. 

      • Steve__T

         Obama earned the mistrust he’s been greeted with since the 2010 election.
        The Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party is almost complete. They’ll save us.

        That’s just…that’s just The two of you ought to get married, and one of you should run for the next election.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    When all is said and done Obama was just four more years of the Bush years – and regardless of whether Romney or Obama are elected, it will be just four more of the same.

    Ruling parties may change – but those ruling the parties stay  pretty much the same.

    • Steve__T

       Nailed it.

  • Sawyerfarm2006

    If you want to “CUT YOUR WAY TO PROSPERITY” then I would think Romney/Ryan is a good fit! I can’t say much more it is a no brainer!! 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Actually the are not proposing cuts (except for Obamacare) but slowing growth in government.

      They are proposing growth policies to grow our way to prosperity — the only sensible solution.

      • Human898

        Oh?   Government defense contracts are what kind of contracts?  Any jobs result?

        How long do “trickle down” approaches take, IF they take since there is not much evidence they do since we still have the Bush tax cuts in place, yet the same people that put it in place based on it doing the same thing Mr. Romney is proposing are now complaining about job and economic growth.  How could that be if the tax plans they have advocated for and put in place (and are still in place) work?  

    • StilllHere

      Gotcha, tax and spend your way prosperity.  Greece here we come!

      • Sawyerfarm2006

        Actual Greece didn’t Tax, much like the Bush Year’s which is what got us here in the first place. I know the but Obama had four years to fix it right but if you take a real look at unemployment if we didn’t cut cut cut state, municipal, Federal jobs the picture would be much different. And you tell a person laid off from one of these that their job was not useful to the ecomomy!! And for WorriedfortheCountry, Slowing growth equals cuts like I talk about above. And the nonsense that this is like Reagan is wrong Reagan did increase Taxes.
        People like to forget the logic behind the Bush Tax cut was that we had a surplus and that meant we could afford it. But then when we started to have deficits the chose to continue it.

        PS

        Sorry I am not more articulate

      • Human898

        If one spends, one has to pay for it, no?   Would you go out and buy something new and expensive then look for a lower paying job to pay for it? How does one put two wars on a credit card then cut the revenue needed to pay the credit card bill? What is a spending gap, how is it made larger, how is it made smaller?

        If one is concerned about paying down debt, would they want more money to do so or less money? Yes, Mr. Romney believes that “more money in people’s pockets” would mean more jobs and through more jobs, more tax revenue. Mr. Obama believes the same, but has been blocked in his approach to doing it quickly versus a trickle down approach of the kind the Bush tax cuts never trickled forth.

        • Bruce94

          Precisely right. There are many inconvenient truths about “trickle-down” or supply-side economics.  One of them is that we tried it twice (Reagan and Bush II) & it didn’t work.  Take the Reagan years, for example, when marginal rates on high income earners were cut AND taxes on investment income were reduced.

          What we saw wasn’t the conservative Nirvana promised.  Instead the share of GDP saved or invested DID NOT rise significantly, and productivity growth was sluggish at best (the slowest of any decade since WWII).  The fed. budget deficit ballooned, ave. Americans saw no improvement in their living standard, and the poor got poorer in absolute terms.

          Another inconvenient truth:  there just is no empirical data to support the supply-side assumption that the wealthy will take their tax-savings windfall and make the types of investments that benefit the economy as a whole–investments in things like factories, machinery or equipment which at least ostensibly, as the bogus theory goes, might boost worker productivity & wages.  Problem is the wealthy tend to spend their ill-gotten tax-cut gains on consumption or speculation, neither of which is all that great for the overall economy as you correctly observe in your posts. 

          And here is the kicker.  Even if the wealthy invest a portion of their windfall in factories and equipment, it will not contribute much to national productivity since it is focused on capital assets rather than people.  What is needed is more investment in things like health, education, job training, and infrastructure–together with research, the keys to sustainable growth and broadly shared prosperity. 

           

        • StilllHere

          I thought Obama had embraced trickle down, as long as it’s the government trickling.

    • Human898

      Yes, cut all the employees and you’ve also cut consumers.
      10 wealthy people might buy five cars apiece, but that does not add up to 90 regular people buying one car apiece.   One person can only drive one car at a time and the total of 50 does not equal 90.

  • skeptic150

    There seem to be a lot of strawman arguments with respect to the embassy issue. The reality is, and any intelligent person knows, investigations take time. Everyone in the government said “we are still investigating” but they were pressed into saying something more that, in hindsight, is cherry-picked by an apparent lynch mob mentality (mainly) Republicans for nothing more than political exploitation. My personal response to those in the media pressing the issue would have been “we are still investigating this – if you want fast results, go to McDonalds.”

  • AliVT

    Why are the chief of staff and lieutenant gov. positions held by women in Gov. Romney’s cabinet glossed over by your guests and yet Jane Swift being pushed aside gets discussed as somehow unfair because she was female? She was an “acting governor” after Cellucci left and it seems reasonable to assume that putting forth the strongest candidate in the next election is what was done — so why would that be Romney’s fault? I don’t get it. I’m an independent thinker and today’s show sounds like a campaign rally for Obama. I’m getting info on Romney’s plan and what doesn’t add up, glad to hear it, but where is the analysis on Obama’s economic policies? Do they add up? We must have the promises and now data on the results to compare. I would hope these journalists could use their experience to look at the policies side by side for us. I want information on both — please illuminate me on both.

    • 228929292AABBB

      I like On Point very much, but if you listen to the interview with a Western mayor a couple weeks ago in a show ostensibly about obesity you’ll be unable to mistake it – the political bias cited by the NYTimes public editor a month ago is at work here as well.  Well meaning people in our media, but a lot of them can’t help but try to re-elect the President.

    • StilllHere

      Sorry you’ve come to the wrong place for independent thought.

    • Steve__T

       I’m afraid that you are going to have to do your own research they won’t do it. Their bosses don’t want you to have a clear picture so you can make an informed decision.
      And while you are researching look at BOTH backgrounds, what other than the economy puts them in your favor ask your self, be open minded but critical on those thing that mean the most to you.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Two of the most liberal papers in the country (The Orlando Sentinel and the Tennessean) have endorsed Romney.

    First R endorsement for both papers since 1972.

    • Steve__T

       I think that It a shame that any news origination would endorse either candidate, It may be their right but that does not make it so.
       News organizations should stick to reporting, the truth the hole truth, and not put their personal thoughts or ideas in it. That kind of influence  is destroying this country. It twists the first amendment out of true perspective and what it was designed to do.
       It was written so that people would get the truth with out the reporters having to worry about reprisals from those who don’t want the truth to be told.

      Now we demonize those who come forth to tell the truth.
      what a disgrace.
      Who has the right to tell you you can’t handle the truth?
      NOBODY!

    • nj_v2

      Pathetically uniformed, the Worried One knows the Sentinel is “liberal” because he read that on his right-wing Web sites.

      The paper actually endorsed Bush1 both times, Dole in ’96, and Shrub in 2000.

  • Katherine Wineberg

    What I just can’t understand is that people are so wiling to vote against their own best interests. what I would like to see from the press is to put each candidates claims into terms everyone can understand. I don’t have all the percentages at the tips of my fingers but the effect of eliminating tax breaks for a family making $75K/yr is very different from the effect on a family making $5 million.  Already someone making $75K/ year will take home $55K.  Someone making $5million will keep 3.5 million.  After the tax breaks Romney wants to eliminate the disparity will be even worse because not only would Romney eliminate deductions for the poor and the middle class he wouldn’t touch high income earners because he claims that they stimulate the economy. Wha? Oh, because the super rich will buy a third or fourth home?  And the $75K earner still has to struggle and scrape and hope their child is a prodigy in order to qualify for school scholarships.   I think that kind of explanation puts things into proper perspective.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       It is clear that you don’t understand Mr. Romney’s proposal.  The rich will pay the same share of taxes under his program but at a lower marginal rate.

      He was also clear that the middle class will not pay more.

      His program is a tax reform program — not a tax cut.

      • Steve__T

         I think she understands perfectly.

      • Human898

        Yes and one could call these, “Tax Relief Reconciliations”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

        I also believe Katherine Wineberg has followed which shell the pea is under quite well.

      • jefe68

        And it’s nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
        One huge flim-flam.

      • Thinkin5

         So why change the rate? It’s just a parlor trick and meaningless to reducing the budget or it’s a tax cut.

      • 1Brett1

        Yeah, Romney will provide a whole “bucket full of tax deductions” of the citizen’s choosing. Capped at $25,000! Of course, earlier in the week Romney said the “bucket” would be capped at $17,000! Even in the debate, he seemed to pull the $25,000 number out of his ass…based on the $25,000 number (Romney used the word, “say,” in the debate, as if, “oh, I don’t know, pick a number”), economists can’t make his math add up to anything than more deficits.  

      • Prodigal Kat

         “Tax reform” is code for redistribution. And in this case it means the middle class will pay more taxes.  Like I said: show us the numbers.  Show us that we will pay less tax while he balances the budget…nay! balances the budget, decreases the deficit AND stimulates the economy.   Really?  Sounds like magic! 
        http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/19/1046711/romney-tax-study-repeal/?mobile=nc

        BTW- I have a solution to the need for more jobs.  Bring back the jobs the companies he and his cronies  sent overseas to improve the bottom line. They improved the bottom line for Wall Street at the expense of American jobs, at the expense of our economy- in the long run.  We need jobs- but you can’t create something out of nothing. Give job creating companies more money (i.e. decreasing their tax rate) to stimulate the economy and what will they do? Send those jobs right overseas again!  Because it’s cheaper and it improves their bottom line.  So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer which is exactly the trend very clearly described in so many places it is irrefutable.

    • notafeminista

      What I can’t understand is how you have any idea what my best interests are.  Or your neighbor’s or the guy across town.  YOUR best interests may or may not be theirs, so how can anyone possibly know if a third party is voting against his/her best interests?

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        What do you mean, that’s the whole beauty of self-professed elites knowing better. Why else would we hand our economy over to boobs like Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner and Summers?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1533378781 Neil Vigliotta

    And the Washington Times did a number on Romney showing that a large number of his advisers were also GW Bush advisers. Very scary:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/romneys-team-starts-to-look-like-bushs/?page=all

  • Bruce94

    Do the wealthiest 2%, who would pay a little more in taxes under Obama, consist of a lot of small business owners/job creators who according to Romney would be crushed by the Obama rates?  I don’t think so.  Here’s why the tale of small business woe as told by a seasoned vulture capitalist & would-be Outsourcer-in-Chief is disingenuous.

    Obama seeks to re-introduce tax fairness, fiscal responsibility & pragmatism in his budget & tax proposals.  Unlike the Romney plan, Obama identifies specific loopholes to be closed (e.g. tax breaks for oil cos., hedge-fund managers & corp. jet owners) AND specific rates to be raised consistent with the generally accepted principle that we are better off as a society when sacrifice is shared in hard times & the benefits of growth are distributed broadly in the good times.

    Unlike Romney, who wimped out during both debates by refusing to disclose which loopholes he would target & to what extent he would close them, Obama has candidly proposed limiting the value of itemized deductions & certain exclusions for taxpayers in the top two brackets to 28%.  In addition, his plan makes it clear that rates would remain the same for those making less than $250,000, rates would rise to 39.6% & 36% for those in the top two brackets, those earning $1 million or more would pay at least 30% (Buffett Rule), the estate tax would be restored, and the corporate rate would drop to 28% (a rate 3 pts. higher than Romney’s plan calls for).

    So how many small business owners would be impacted?  Not as many as you might think.  The nonpartisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates only 3% of small businesses would be affected by the higher rates–less than 0.25 percent of the country.  Romney et al go into apoplexy at the mere suggestion of even a modest tax hike on such a small sliver of the population because a whopping 50% of total small business income goes to this elite 3 percent.

    And just how many of these elite “small business” owners actually employ people?  Not a many as you might think.  Most do not employ anyone; they are individuals who are successful in their professions including two-earner professional couples, doctors, lawyers, engineers, Wall St. execs., etc.  A Treasury Dept. report shows that in 2011 less than one-third of small business income was subject to the top two tax rates and that of the taxpayers subject to the top two rates, only 25% were small businesses with employees.

    Just like the Big Bird bashing featured in the first debate, the Small Business bleating remains a popular campaign theme from the make-over artists who devised Romney’s “etch-a-sketch” strategy counting on the collective amnesia of the electorate or the suppression of the fact-checkers by the Far Right 24-hour cable news/talk radio echo chamber.

    • William

       How many budgets did Obama get passed during his time in office? Not as many as you might think…

      • Human898

        Why would Republicans and I was one once, before the “neos”, vote to not take up an Obama budget to consider?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Any one see the Al Smith speeches?  At least they brought some great humor to this intense campaign.  I couldn’t stop laughing.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/18/romney_addresses_67th_annual_alfred_e_smith_memorial_foundation_dinner.html
     

    • Gregg Smith

      Loved them!

    • jefe68

      Has the earth reversed it’s polarities?
      Al Smith the foremost urban leader of the efficiency-oriented Progressive Movement and a Mitt Romney moment…

      The Al Smith who ran against Herbert Hoover as an anti-Prohibition candidate?

      Interesting to note that Smith was against FDR’s New Deal even though it used a lot of ideas from the progressive movement.

      Mitt was not as funny as he was during the last debate.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Pay attention.

        It was a fund raiser for Catholic charities.

        Wow.

  • mommilley

    Where was the story of thousands of pages of formerly hidden documents of more sexual violence against boys perpetrated this time by the BOY SCOUTS, an organization heavily influenced by the Mormon Church, the Church for whom candidate Romney has served at one of the top elders and decision makers for many years?  

  • Human898

    I have to say I go along with one of the callers who spoke about patience.  The “Great Recession” that began in 2007, got very critical in 2008 and continued to slide through 2009 represented more than 2 years of downward trend, the attacks on Mr. Obama’s “failures” began as soon as he took office, in some cases there were those who said they “hope he fails” even before he took office. 
     
    Yet, even though this recession was headlined in the WSJ on September 18, 2008 as the “Worst Crisis Since 30′s, No End Yet in Sight”, there seems to be this notion that recovery from it had a known and specified time limit to it.   How so and what historical basis is there for that if this is truly the 2nd worst financial crisis on record for this nation and we know how long the worst took to recover from and what helped it recover.
     
    How is it the political party that had their person in the White House at the time of the above headline are the ones pushing hardest with the idea that what occurred then is now unrelated (or never happened by omitting mention of it) to our current economy and that 4 years is enough without pointing out that at least a full year of those 4 years was not only sorting through what went wrong so fixes, aside from emergency fixes, could be developed, voted upon and eventually be implemented and have time to work, but still an economy in free fall?
     
    The sinking economy, like a supertanker or fully loaded freight train did not stop on a dime and as with someone who is in a head-on collision versus a fender bender, the injuries don’t heal overnight even with perfect care and no one disputing or trying to block the care applied or that patients healing from critical care are subject to setbacks.  
     
    Mr. Romney’s approach appears to suggest he would have let the nation’s economy dive all the way to the bottom, (while he profited?) then take credit for a recovery he says would have naturally occurred, just as he would likely take credit for Obama policies, unless he halts them all the day he takes office, if Mr. Obama’s policies finally, after the time it takes to implement them and let them work, find some traction.
     
    The notion that Mr. Obama has no record to run on is not a whole truth, especially when one compares the direction the economy was going in when he took office.
     
    I also go with the notion, being fiscally conservative, that a slow steady or stable rise is preferable to a rapid short term sketchy math, get rich quick rise that results in longer term economic turmoil. I also don’t see how Mr. Romney who repeated that “goverment does not create jobs”, just after he told the audience how he, as president, would create jobs, can make any of his plan work immediately, even if he were elected into a vacuum that allowed him to act as a dictator more than an elected (not hired) chief executive officer of a nation, not a business. Are businesses run democratically?

    A tax cut was made in 2001 entitled the “Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001″, another one was passed in 2003 entitled the “Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003″, both of those remain in effect. Are we here talking about how well they worked to cause the effect their titles suggested or are we here talking about something else?? Yet, the central theme of Mr. Romney’s undetailed tax plan is tax cuts and how they will grow the economy. How does that make sense and what can Mr. Romney point to with regard to some proof his plan will work?

    Bernard Madoff was an “experenced business person”, dealt with billions of dollars and he had a plan too, that wealthy people bought into.

  • mommilley

    Where oh where was the discussion about the thousands of papers hidden by the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA pertaining to the abuse of young boys?  The Mormon Church is has been very influential in the  BOY SCOUTS AND THE EAGLE SCOUT PROGRAM for the last 30 years.  Candidate Romney has been a leader in that church for many years.  How much did he know of this and when did he know it?  What will we find out about the link alleged by the SCOUTS that they needed to ban homosexuals because they might aggress young boys?  My guess is that few if any of the tainted leaders will turn out to be homosexuals. 

    • OnPointComments

      President Obama serves as honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America, so I bet he knows about the abuse that occurred too!  And the Boy Scouts hold regular meetings at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the church that President Obama attended for more than 20 years, absolute proof that President Obama must be involved in hiding the scandal.  How much did he know of this and when did he know it?
       
      It’s sarcasm.  But it’s not a bigger stretch than the one you’re making.

      • StilllHere

        The connections seem more well defined in Obama’s case.

        • 1Brett1

          Obama is a bishop in his church and still belongs to that church, too! …No, wait, that’s Romney…

  • Dee

    Re: The caller wondering why the focus ins’t on Obama’s
    economy of the last four years 

    TOM, I don’t know why you are your guests (especially 
    Jack ) doesn’t have the following information below on 
    the crisis Obama inherited four year ago on the tip of 
    their tongues and where it is now…This seems funda-
    mental information for you and your guest and Obama 
    to be articulating to the people. All in its rough forms…
    It was a crisis on Many Fronts as Bob Herbert of the 
    NYT notes below……See the URL.

    Today, the economy is not in free fall -although growth 
    is weak and not where it ought to be. Still, there is light 
    at the end of the tunnel. So why change Presidents now? 
    Let Obama finish what he started as he points out…..

    The wars are winding down and the war money and 
    the BUSH ERA tax cut are coming to an end…And 
    hopefully many of the obstructionists in the TEA PARTY
    and GOP will be sent packing…This we all know would 
    help  a great deal! Please check out the columns below.

    Dee

    PS Please remind your audience when Bush left office 
    the county was already in a hangover from his 11 trillion
    dollar deficit.  This is a fact—check out Jim Cooper’s
    column… SO if anymore has been cleaning up the mess
    it is Obama. He deserves that credit & acknowledgement
    for this… Come on Guys and Girls!

    A Crises on Many Front, Bob Herbert, NYT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/opinion/25herbert.html?_r=0
    Obama inherited a Fiscal Crises , James Cooper, CMC
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0218/p09s02-coop.html

    Banks Gone Wild , Paul Krugman, NYT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opinion/23krugman.html

    THE RECOVERY IS BETTER THAN ROMNEY WOULD LIKE IT …
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/obama-economy-recovery_b_1975221.html

  • StilllHere

    According to Obama, the four deaths in Libya were sub-optimal bumps in the road, but he may just be referring to the politics, I hope.  Can’t tell, this guy will say anything to get re-elected.

    • osullivan11

      words were put in his mouth by Jon Stewart….. if you saw the full interview you can see how seriously Pres. Obama takes this issue….

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        If Romney made the same GAFFE the next 3 onpoint shows would be only about the gaffe.

        • osullivan11

          not a gaffe… he appears to have meant what he said (although with a touch of sarcasm at Stewarts initial use of the word optimal)…. it absolutely is not optimal…

          that’s the difference… meaning what you say…. 

          same way that the 47% remark wasn’t a gaffe… Romney means this… even though he doesn’t seem to understand who the 47% are…… insulting the brits and david cameron before the olympics…. that was a gaffe…

          • Coastghost

            The rough equivalents to Obama’s slur about “Polish death camps” and his very curious assertion that Egypt is no longer a US ally.

          • osullivan11

            again, the difference is meaning what you say…

            did Obama mean to say that about polish death camps…. No? Did he mean to say that Egypt is not an ally? TBH, I don’t know…. that is arguable and perhaps reasonable..

            did Mitt mean to say that about the 47%….Yes … insult britain…. Yes…  say palestinians don’t have ingenuity…Yes….

            As part of your thorough analysis of the media… how many foot in mouth moments has Mr Romney had…. at a quick glance… many more that Pres. Obama.

          • Coastghost

            Romney is only a candidate for the office of President, and he doesn’t need my help misspeaking. Obama has been President for almost four years, but his time on the job has left him prone to insulting allies? Maybe by now he needs a four year rest, if that’s what his fourth year in office is showing us.

      • StilllHere

        Who can afford cable in this crappy, Obama economy!

        • Thinkin5

          All the wealthy and all those who stayed in the stock market and have gained what they lost in 2008 and more. The rich and corporations have gotten vastly richer under Obama and they are mostly against him. Interesting huh?

        • osullivan11

          you can watch it for free online…. use your personal initiative and google it! Cheers

          • 1Brett1

            StillHere is just waiting on the entitlement couch for someone to link it for him!

          • StilllHere

            Just watched it, thanks for the link above, and the context makes it look even worse.  He is all about politics and cares nothing for the loss of lives.  It’s just a bump in the road!  So sad.

          • osullivan11

            You may have watched it… but you didn’t listen…. it’s pretty simple really.

        • Steve__T

           Pray tell what you are using to post here?
          Oh I know you can’t afford the internet either.

          • StilllHere

            Thankfully, I’ve got free internet thanks to Obama’s free internet plan that came with the Obamaphone.  Thank goodness Obama loves himself deficits!!

        • 1Brett1

          You’re just envious of the “cabled” because they’ve worked harder than you and your entitled feelings of wanting cable to just be handed to you! 

      • Coastghost

        No: the words that emerged from Obama’s mouth were Obama’s words. Once Obama let Stewart’s words seep into his ears, he was perfectly free not to simply repeat the phrase Stewart used. Obama could have paused to reflect with stellar professorial poise, but he didn’t, he simply blurted.  Maybe he’s still decompressing from his high altitude performance in the first debate. 

        • osullivan11

          C’mon now. no one is saying he didn’t say it I’m only referencing the context in which he said it…. which was compassionate and extremely sympathetic to the victims and their families. 

          • Coastghost

            If Obama’s (and Hillary’s) State Department were not content to farm security details out to foreign contractors (who has mentioned outsourcing in the context of Benghazi?), four Americans might still be on post. The Benghazi episode shows either that there’s a disconnect between the White House and the State Department or that the narrative is still being massaged to conceal someone’s failure to provide US personnel with the security they need to do their jobs and stay alive. Five weeks later, and the clear story STILL has not emerged.

    • 1Brett1

      You’re slipping, SH!?! Shouldn’t you have worked in Obama is a misanthrope, or something? ….No, wait, I’ve got that wrong: I’M a misanthrope for not saying Obama is a misanthrope…Better? 

  • Dee

    addendum

    Give Obama credit where credit is due….

    Even my hair dresser can articulate what Jared Berstein
    points out below and questions the wisdom of changing
    a President in mid stream even if the recovery was weak. 
    ( Her business is still good…she is no fool…) 

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/obama-economy-recovery_b_1975221.html

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    CNN did an analysis of Obama job creation based and the Obama stimulus.

    They used number from the Obama loving economist Mark Zandi.

    He claims that $1.3T of the Obama years spending is considered ‘stimulus’.  The result of this stimulus is the creation of 4.5M jobs.

    Simple math puts the price tag at $300K per job.

    Of course many of these jobs are part time and minimum wage jobs.

    Not a very good ROI.

    • J__o__h__n

      Zandi was an advisor to McCain.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Exactly.  No wonder he lost.

        • Ray in VT

          I think that McCain having run on the heels of George Bush, his somewhat erratic behavior during the campaign and his choice of running mate had more to do with his defeat than Zandi.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Of course you are dead on vis a vis McCain.

            I’ve noticed that CNN trots out Zandi every time there is horrible economic data or bad jobs numbers and he always put positive spin on it.

            Also, Zandi is out there saying the economy will create 12M jobs no matter who we elect and if we do nothing. Convenient that he picks the exact number that Romney’s economic team is predicting. Really?

            Funny, there are other economists that are saying Romney’s estimates are too aggressive and there is no possible way the economy can create 12M jobs even with aggressive reforms.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, people have numbers that are all over the place.  It’s educated guesswork really.  Nate Silver said on the Daily Show that a lot of commentators and experts, over time, get stuff right only about half of the time.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Good work if you can get it :) 

          • Ray in VT

            I’d take a gig that probably pays well, might get me a book deal, and still lets me be wrong half of the time.  Although, if I had my choice of good work, I’d still take my childhood dream of patrolling left field for the Sox.

          • 1Brett1

            shhh! That muddles the narrative…

          • hennorama

            McCain lost the election on Sept, 15, 2008 when he said “…the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

    • 1Brett1

      Simple math for simple minds…if ALL of the stimulus money had been devoted purely to each job, then simplicity would be the mother of simple invention in your simplistic scenario.

    • Steve__T

      “Obama loving economist”
      He’s a Republican talking head, you got anything you don’t twist?

    • AC

      what’s more interesting is who really got the excess? presumably, not the worker directly, so – where is it?

    • AC

      …now that i’m wondering; does that account for materials, equipment and overhead as well? it must, right? also, what % went to companies/people already employed but integral to project completetion?
      Can you give us a real breakdown? the more i think about it, the more that simple statement seems too simple (ignorant at best, slanderous at worst….)

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         CNN (Erin Burnett) admitted it was a simple analysis but it is good metric for progress.  It was only a 4-5 minute segment.

        Is the stimulus creating anything structural or lasting? 

        We are still reaping the benefits of the TVA and Hoover Dam investments from the ’30s.  I don’t see anything structural from the massive Obama stimulus.  If there was some great benefit of the Obama stimulus you would think they would be touting it in ads.

        Perhaps they thought the $90B infusion into the ‘green’ economy would reap benefits but it fizzled.

    • Mike_Card

      But…but…but…the government never created a single job–only the private enterprise job creators can do that!  Or did the teabaggers do an etch-a-sketch on that, too?

  • Dee

    Addendum: I don’t wish to add insult to injury but to 
    call a spade a spade….Please read Triumph of The 
    Wrong.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/krugman-triumph-of-the-wrong.html

    • Steve__T

       Great article thanks Dee

    • StilllHere

      So the choice is between Obama, who’s been proven wrong, and Romney who Krugman thinks will be proven wrong.  Easy choice.

  • hennorama

    As Major Garrett said, Mr. Romney says multiple things about taxes, and they are logically incongruous and impossible to do simultaneously.

    Mr. Romney’s carefully worded messages on taxes for the wealthiest do reach the ears of the wealthy, however.  Mr. Romney has said many things about taxes for the wealthy.  Let’s just say his position seems to have “evolved”.

    During the primaries, on Feb 22, 2012, Mr. Romney said:

    “I said today that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.”

    Then in September he said:

    “By the way, don’t be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I’m also going to lower deductions and exemptions.”

    So he’ll cut tax rates by 20% across the board, but make up for it by cutting deductions, exemptions, credits, etc.  Compared to Pres. Obama’s proposals, Mr. Romney’s plan reduces the rate for the highest tax bracket by 11.6%.  This enormous difference is far more valuable to the wealthiest than deductions, exemptions and credits.

    He also says he won’t cut the “share” or “burden” of taxes paid by those with the highest incomes.

    In the most recent debate, Mr. Romney said:

    “I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now.”

    “The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent ofthe income tax the nation collects. So that’ll stay the same.”

    “Middle-income people are going to get a tax break.”

    “And I will not – I will not under any circumstances, reduce theshare that’s being paid by the highest income taxpayers.”

    “I’m not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people. I am looking to cut taxes for middle-income people.”

    Etc.

    As Pres. Clinton said yesterday “He thinks we’re DUMB.  If you cut everybody else’s taxes and people in my income group pay the same percentage, WE get a tax cut TOO.”

    I agree with Major Garrett – this stuff is impossible.

    • 1Brett1

      Come on, Romney has been suffering from Romnesia…

      • hennorama

        Hahaha good one! BTW, I enjoyed your “Why do you envy the envious and self-victimed?” comment in another thread as well.

        Thanks for the comic relief.

        • 1Brett1

          If I were “Stillhere” I’d say, “why do you envy comic relief so much?”

        • Gregg Smith

          Brett’s cute but it’s Obama’s line.

          • 1Brett1

            Thanks for the “cuteness” vote!

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Romney has no plan and no new ideas, it’s all dogma from 1980 and lies. His real agenda is class warfare, even more redistribution to the top. Even real conservatives and republicans realize his “plan” is just voodoo. Yesterday righty wingnut economist Ben Stein told shocked faux news hosts that we have a “low tax problem”. Today in the NYT former reagan and bush econ advisor Bruce Bartlett said “The idea that tax reform will jump-start an economy suffering from the after-effects of a cyclical downturn is nonsense”.

    Well, obviously. We’re in sorry shape when it’s news when someone says the emperor has no clothes.

    • pete18

      And the new and successful ideas that Obama used in his first four years and is suggesting for his next term are….?
      Anyone? Anyone?

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Implement the ACA, raise taxes at the top, get us out of “the graveyard of empires”, spend on infrastructure, R&D etc sounds good to me, especially compared to the VERY tired and discredited “more tax cuts and deregulation” plus more attacks on the safety net.

        • pete18

          It may sound good to you but there is nothing older, more tired and more discredited than spending on infrastructure and taxing the rich as an economic expansion policy presented by Democrats.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Except we’ve been cutting taxes on the rich and not spending on infrastructure, LOL

            Oh what a plan Lord R has: the 1,999,999′th repetition of “tax cuts ‘n deregulation” plus attacks on SS and medicare, with a little extra military spending just to complete the righty catechism. How fresh, how imaginative. How well it worked during the Bush era. 

            Can anyone really be dumb enough to like the romney “plan”?

          • Steve__T

             Yep!!!

          • pete18

             Tom, you can argue that you think Obama has a better plan
            if you’d like but you certainly can’t argue that Obama’s  viewpoints are better because he’s presenting new, innovative ideas that have been demonstrated to work in his first term. His 2008 campaign was a reenactment of stale, Democrat ideas that been recycled since the 1930s. They were presented by a guy who had no life experiences that would indicate an ability to accomplish anything outside of community organizing. The last four years have utter failure no mater how you measure them and no one who’s intellectually honest can say he’s put anything new on the table during this campaign. Binders and Big
            Bird has been about it from Mr Hope and Change.

        • Gregg Smith

          There were no “shovel ready jobs” the last time we paid for them with the “stimulus”.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            If you ever get out, take a look at our roads, public transport etc. If you ever get out of the USA, compare our airports and rail to what you see. The USA is packed with shovel ready projects.

            It’s true that the ARRA didn’t have the impact it should have, since as a compromise with the right it was 1/3 tax cuts and too small anyway. Even so it had a big part in stopping the momentum of the Bush crash and saving a lot of jobs.

          • Coastghost

            Last rides I took in NYC last year, I thought I was going to lose my fillings.

          • Steve__T

             Well don’t drive your car to Mexico. you’ll loose more than your fillings.

          • Gregg Smith

            Obama himself admitted it, he made a joke. The bureaucracy is brutal.

        • Coastghost

          Hmmm: Obama’s record on “R&D” so far consists of making employees in the domestic solar panel industry unemployed. And he spends hundreds of millions of dollars to render them unemployed, too. Once they’re out of work, though, they can become grateful wards of the maternal state . . .

          • TomK_in_Boston

            You ought to get your info from more sources than righty blogs. There’s a lot more in the world than the cases that your leaders turn into official talking points.

          • StilllHere

            Yeah, he forgot the unemployed battery makers at A123!

          • Coastghost

            Ahhh, but I don’t consult righty blogs: I listen to NPR! (I don’t watch TV of any kind, but I do consult Google News feeds.) Yeh, as StillHere says, A123 is the latest Obama R&D success, up for sale to the Chinese, according to the last report I saw.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            I can explain this to you, but can’t understand it to you:

            Righty blogs –> Drudge (thereforePolitico) –> Beltway Inbreds –> NPR is helpless not to cover something because “everyone’s talking about it”.

            It’s pretty simple. NPR is piss-pants scared of being liberal, and no matter how they debase their output they think they can get you to like them for them.

            They’re that stupid about it. Many of us on the left are not.

          • Coastghost

            NPR may be piss-pants scared (like that one) of losing the CPB, its very own mother lode, but it’s not piss-pants scared of being (or of being seen as) modestly progressive, modestly liberal: you can hear it in their editing every day if you listen closely, and sometimes in the actual reporting if the editors have not been paying strict attention. As I said somewhere up this page, I listen both to what NPR says and what it does not say, and what it fails to say is every bit as revealing as what it chooses to say. (Ovbiously, the same goes for all media and for each of us wonderful human beings.)

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    ‘My son is not very optimal – he is very dead’: Mother of diplomat killed in Benghazi attack slams Obama’s comment on raid

    US press?  NOPE  British press?  YES

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220241/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-attack-Mother-diplomat-criticises-Presidents-optimal-comment.html
     

    • Steve__T

       Thanks for the out of context sound bite

      • StilllHere

        wrong, but nice try

    • osullivan11

      she actually said that his death should be used as a political device…..

    • StilllHere

      Thanks for the link, certainly puts the Obama sheep in a bad position of having to defend the indefensible; but they’ll try.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-MC/69207889 Matt MC

        So, if Worried and Still are the same person, he basically just congratulated himself. A laptop in one hand and a tablet in the other and not a brain between them. 

        • Ray in VT

          I do wonder, at times, if different posters could be the same person, but if your assertion was to be correct, then the Worried hand would seem to have about 10 times the brains of the Stilll hand.  It might be higher than that.  Worried makes some good points, although I think that we’re separated by a wide ideological gulf.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-MC/69207889 Matt MC

            I’m not saying he doesn’t have good points, but it annoys me when people flood the comments section. He has one every four to five posts, many just repeats of previous posts. I find that annoying, rude, and the equivalent of shouting in polite conversation. 

          • Ray in VT

            There are a couple of people who are guilty OF USING THE CAPS LOCK WAY TOO MUCH!!!  I also get really annoyed by hyperbole, as it is the worst thing in the entire universe.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-MC/69207889 Matt MC

      Still trolling everyday huh? Yeesh. 

      • StilllHere

        Excellent retort, for a bot.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-MC/69207889 Matt MC

          So you have multiple accounts to troll? Clever. 

    • 1Brett1

      Where are the links to the New York Post or the Weekly World News?

    • hennorama

      When I watched The Daily Show last night, I winced at the use of that phrase.  It was a very bad choice of words.  One could even say it was “inelegantly stated.”

      If you watch the clip you will see that the phrase “not optimal” was used earlier, and that Pres. Obama’s remark was a direct response to Jon Stewart’s use of the “not the optimal response” phrasing in his comments.

      Here’s the clip from the Daily Show:

      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-18-2012/exclusive—barack-obama-extended-interview-pt–2

      About 1:10 in, Pres. Obama was discussing his decision making process and said “… sometimes there are bad folks somewhere on the other side of the world, and you’ve gotta make a call and sometimes it’s not optimal …” which introduced the phrase.

      About 4:50 into the clip, when discussing the way the Obama admin. has been sending mixed messages on Benghazi, Stewart said “I would say even you would admit it was not the optimal response …” and then the President made the “…if 4 Americans get killed, it’s not optimal” remark.

      So there’s the context.  Still, a very bad choice of words.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        I agree with you.

        I reference it to point out the hypocrisy in the media.  When Romney makes an ‘inelegent’ statement it is in the news for weeks.  Take “I like to fire people” when he was talking about the choice to fire your ineffectual insurance company.

        Even in today’s show how much time was spent on ‘binders’ — when Romney was simply touting his keeping  a campaign promise to hire women to important positions.  There was nary a mention of Obama’s inelegent remark.

        I wouldn’t bother to mention this if todays show was a bit more balanced.
         

        • http://twitter.com/tunnelman3 jason keedy

          Still would rather have Obama keeping watch…as opposed to Romney who has listed Russia as our greatest threat and who wants to go after China on his first day in office. Romney is too volatile and is basically Bush Light.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I will continue my media critique.

            Imagine if Romney told Medvedev to tell Putin that he would be more flexible after the election because it was his last election.

            It would still be front page news in the NYTimes — 90 days later.
             

          • Human898

            What non-media, does your information come from?

        • Coastghost

          Was even one mention made in today’s show of “not optimal”? I petitioned Tom Ashbrook here in the forum to mention it at least once after he alluded to “binders” at least twice, but I don’t recall that he or any of his guests mentioned it the first time .

          • nj_v2

            Sorry, Bush Lite is already taken. That’s Oily Bomber. Rmoney can apply for Bush Medium.

          • Steve__T

             I can;t say I have ever heard a quote from FOX or Comedy Central here.

          • Coastghost

            Well, don’t pick on Tom Ashbrook just because he’s a Yale man working in Boston. He’s intelligent and resourceful, and if he doesn’t watch Stewart’s show regularly, I’m sure he at least knows it’s on TV, he’d probably even heard that Obama was the guest last night. (I’m not a Yale man and don’t even watch TV, and even I know that Stewart has a TV show!)

        • Steve__T

           I know you’ve seen me post this before.
          There is no Right no Left just TOP and the top pull the strings.

          So theirs your balance, no such animal.

        • Human898
    • Dee

      Try going after Obama’s accusers who led us into 
      an illegal war on Iraq and the extension of that il-
      legal war into Afghanistan today….

      And I should add the NATO attacks on Libya under 
      pretext—the Libyan leader was attacking his 
      people when he was trying to put out a western 
      assault against him by the neocons in Washington.
      Just as they are doing today in Syria…..

      So much for their humanitarian concern for the 
      Syrian people….See the URL , the author makes
      the reference to the previous assault on Libya too.

      It’s all there……smarten up!       Dee

      Syria, NATO’s Next Humanitarian War 

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-nato-s-next-humanitarian-war/29234

      Hands off Syria , Chris Marsden 

      http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/pers-m31.shtml

      P.S. Obama’s only crime is that he allowed those 
      Zionist apologists in the US House and Senate 
      under John Mc Cain and Lindsey Graham and in 
      the Pentagon, the CIA and Right Wing Think Tanks 
      to force his hand and send our troops and diplo-
      mats into Afghanistan to do their bidding………
      (I believe Romney would have us bombing the 
      Middle East and in a cold war with Chine….That’s 
      what they want from Obama also. And he better
      not go there.) 

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Hi Dee.  The Iraq war might have been ill advised but it was not illegal.

        The middle east is a mess.  At least we can agree on that.  The sooner we get off of ME oil the better.  They will have have less cash and we can turn the other way.

        • Dee

          Perhaps you don’t know but it is illegal 
          to attack another state and territory in
          an act of aggression under internation-
          la law and the UN Charter. Thus, there 
          was nothing self defense about a fabri-
          cated threat such as WMDs….

          And as Ron Paul so rightly has pointed 
          out (if you believe the government’s
          story on 9/11 and Al Quade, I don’t).

          Al Quade is not a country but a group
          of individuals hanging out in the moun-
          tains in Afghanistan . So to exploit such 
          a situation and place this on the level of
          war instead of law enforcement was all
          wrong to begin with…

          In addition, the UN Secretary, Koffi Annan 
          has come out and called it “illegal” too.   

          Si it is a done deal & I want the criminals
          reined in to and charged accordingly.Dee

          See the URL…Prosecuting an outlaw 
          Administration……Harper’s Magazine 

          http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/0082303

          Here is the real reason American forces 
          are in Afghanistan and it is far from build
          ing democracy…..

          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opinion/20collier.html?_r=0

           

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Koffi Annan?  Has he returned the money his family skimmed off the oil for food program?  I wouldn’t consider him a disinterested party.  The Iraq war ended his gravy train.

            I thought you were referring to US law.  My error.
             

          • Human898

            Where do you get the bulk of your information WftC?

            Is this guy’s name Koffi Annan?

            http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N43/long4.html

          • Steve__T

             If people really knew what our government was up to we have a revolution on out hands. Unfortunately most who read thees articles think they are some kind of fiction or don’t care because It’s not them it not their problem just look at the reply from WFTC below There is little sanity left in the world and even less caring for others or their dignity, intelligence their rights or their property.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            If you don’t believe the UN is one of the most corrupt institutions in the history of mankind then your head is in the sand.

            I seriously question if the benefits are worth the cost.

          • Human898

            Yes, the OFF “scandal” netted what, but the prosecution and conviction of a corrupt Texas oilman?
            http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N43/long4.html

            In addition, whose resolutions were used as an excuse to “enforce”?

            What is the history of the UN with regard to its origins and promotion?

    • Human898

      How many sons are dead from going to war based on the still elusive WMD in Iraq, both American and Iraqis?  Was Reagan equally responsible for the death of more than 200 marines in Beirut?   How long did it take for the Bush leadership to tell Pat Tillman’s parents he was killed by friendly fire?   That’s not an exuse, it is a call for consistency and the questioning of the “leadership” ability of those who would make use of a tragedy for political gain.

      • StilllHere

        Moral relativism, that’s what it’s come to?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1509920808 Lauralee Hunter Lainhart

    There are women, like me, who are actually against abortion. And I won’t vote for someone in support of it. There are other options. We all know how babies are created….
    Obama has always scared me because he seems to lack respect for tradition or traditional values.
    Our future needs a healthy dose of respect for our past combined with vision of a better tomorrow.

    • http://twitter.com/tunnelman3 jason keedy

      So you’re willing to vote against someone who respects a woman’s right to choose? And you want a better tomorrow? How does Romney and the GOP’s complete lack of recognition of climate change make you comfortable that he’ll provide a “better tomorrow?”

      • harverdphd

         I love women who choose to recognize climate change; I just think they’re easy…

    • nj_v2

      No one “supports” abortion, exactly, but whatever…

      • harverdphd

         right…whatever indeed

    • Human898

      Have you ever heard of the term pro-choice?  Just as you suggest you are against abortion and would like someone to repect your choice, would you deny someone who for some reason decided they did not want to be pregnant, either to avoid termination of pregnancy becoming an issue or so welfare babies and mamas weren’t considered as a part of the 47%? Galileo Galilei faced charges of heresy and was tried for believing the earth and other planets revolved around the sun, rather than the earth. Is that the sort of “respect” for our past we need a “healthy dose of”? What about slavery? Should we go back to the time before women could vote?

  • Dee

    Re: Steve T. The Triumph of the Wrong ….

    I imagine, you have seen The Frontline piece called 
    The Warning but if you and others haven’t here it is.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

    Also, a piece by Arthur Levitt, Jr Chair of the Security 
    and Exchange on Regulatory Underkill.  He is also in
    The Warning on the opposing side of Brooksley Born. 

    (It is just awful how his lack of insight was then and 
    how he dismissed her concerns. I would love to see
    him come out against Romney’s foolish insight today.
    I think I would accept this as pay back to Brooksley
    Born . Maybe she would too…) Dee

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120605716375753327.html

    • Steve__T

       Yes I have and there are other secrets that the common man has no access to. The reply’s to thefirst post says volumes, knowledgeable people are incensed,  but still nothing done about it.

  • Dee

    Re: Steve T. The Triumph of the Wrong  on 9/11 

    I realize I maybe jumping ahead here but some have 
    said to understand how the 9/11 attacks were usher-
    ed in one has to look back to the failure of the mark-
    ets and especially the toxic acids and the derivatives 
    markets…which involved as you know trillions of doll-
    ars not just billions…

    Yet, my point here is show how other government 
    agencies: the CIA and FBI and Pentagon all seem to 
    have colluded to limit the inquiry of the 9/11 Attack
    Commission…Note the omissions by the scholarship 
    of David Ray Griffin below. 

    It seems like an extension of the trouble derivatives ..

    Once again , the blocking and dismissal of information 
    by insiders and those in the know investors….

    http://archive.org/details/drgriffin

    A paper listing of the omissions & distortion By David Ray

    http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html

    Here is the blueprint of the evidence also by an architect

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032 

    • Steve__T

       Dee you really don’t want to get me started on this.
      I agree with your post, I hope others take a critical look at your links. I mean a hard look and under stand what it truly means.

      Unfortunately most wont, and some will call us both conspirators because nobody want to believe they were lied to and the wool was puled over their eyes.

  • ExcellentNews

    Ahoy! I made $140,000,000 exporting your jobs to slave-labor countries. So nice to have powerful friends abroad… Anyway, I think that I should not give ANY of my hard-earned money to help beat-up workers and young upstarts. They are not my problem. So, I want to say a big THANKS to all the faithful or patriotic posters that support the Romney presidency! I’m not sure what YOU will be getting from it, but I’m sure what’s in it for ME!

  • ExcellentNews

    To the caller at 26:50 in the show – under the GOP forced pregnancy plans, there WILL be a bright future for these unwanted children. For instance, they can fight in Iran (after all, the Romney children will be busy punching Obama, so someone needs to defend our foreign allies). Also, the more swollen the ranks of desperate workers are, the lower wages we can pay! So what’s the problem here???

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Do financial recessions lead to weak recoveries?

    That seems to be the consensus on this board.  Here is a different view –more economics — the soft science.

    “We found that recessions that were tied to financial crises and were 1% deeper than average have historically led to growth that is 1.5% stronger than average. ”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444506004577613122591922992.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    • hennorama

      Mr. Bordo’s article is interesting, but its assertions were not conclusive.  In fact, the 3rd sentence pretty well says it all:

      “To the contrary, U.S. business cycles going back more than a century show that deep recessions accompanied by financial crises are ALMOST always followed by rapid recoveries.” [emphasis added]

      And to include US financial crises prior to creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 is semi-ridiculous.  Prior to the creation of the Fed, the US banking system was extremely fractured and fairly disconnected from the economy as a whole.  A great example of this disconnection happened just prior to the creation of the Fed:

      “In 1907, a severe financial panic jolted Wall Street and forced several banks into failure. This panic, however, did not trigger a broad financial collapse. Yet the simultaneous occurrence of general prosperity with a crisis in the nation’s financial centers persuaded many Americans that their banking structure was sadly out of date and in need of major reform.”

      source: http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/history_article.html

      Another enormous difference is the interconnectivity of the international banking systems and the entire global economy, making comparisons to long-ago recessions fairly specious.

      Lastly, the Great Recession is absolutely unlike ANY post-WWII recession.  Here’s an interesting article, from the Minneapolis Fed:

      http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4620

      In sum, the Great Recession is unique.  The nearest comparison is to the Great Depression, and we are very fortunate that the efforts of the US government, The Federal Reserve, and central banks worldwide prevented the Great Recession from become Great Depression II.

      BTW, for those interested in the working paper Mr. Bordo refers to in his article, you can find it here: (be warned, this 46 page paper is pretty dense)

      http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Very impressive.  You found the Bordo paper.  Thanks for posting.

        I particularly enjoyed the section titled ‘simple analytics of the plucking model’.

        • hennorama

          Thank you for your response and your kind words.

          Yes, very little gets past me when I have access to various search engines. You’re welcome for the post, of course. Glad you found it interesting and enjoyable.

          I found Friedman’s “plucking a string” model interesting but highly simplistic. However, I must admit that I was intrigued by the notion of a discussion of a vibrating string in economic theory, rather than in the field of music.

          As I stated previously, the concept of a “snap back” recovery (i.e. Friedman’s plucked string) is the type of economic recovery that most people are familiar with. I’ve endeavored mightily and often to disabuse those reading my posts of the notion that we should expect such a rapid and robust recovery.

          I’ve also previously posited politically (try saying that fast 3 times!) that no one who told the American public the truth about what to expect after the Great Recession could get elected. No one was ready to or eager to hear that it would be a long, slow grind.

          But that was and is the truth.

    • Human898

      How long did it take to recover from the worst financial crisis on record in this nation’s history?  The WSJ headlined this one as the second worst.  What historical evidence is there for the length of time a recovery should take from such and the strength of such a recovery and why would those they “didn’t see” nor did they prevent, the “Worst Crisis since the 30′s, No End Yet in Sight” (WSJ Headline September 18, 2008) coming or from coming suddenly are suggesting how long a recovery from such should take and to what level of strength?

  • hennorama

    3 quick points (OK, maybe not so quick):

    1. The Great Recession (GR) was a “balance sheet recession” and
    completely unlike the typical “boom/bust” recessions that most
    people have experienced.  Recovery from a balance sheet recession takes MUCH longer and is much less robust compared to the “snap back” recoveries typical of boom/bust recessions.  Visualize it as L-shaped rather than V-shaped.

    see:
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/637771-balance-sheet-recession-ensures-slow-growth-going-forward

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/recovering-from-a-balance-sheet-recession/

    2. Much of the hard work of repairing the balance sheet damage from the GR has already been done.  Individuals and businesses have paid down debt and added to savings rather than borrowing and spending.  This is why demand for products and services has been muted, economic growth has been weak, and unemployment stubbornly high.  I’ve dubbed this recovery “The BBQ Recovery” – low and slow, just like making BBQ.

    see:
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-consumer-debt-20121015,0,4770295.story

    Even the housing market is showing hopeful signs, and the Fed is
    trying to ensure that this continues.

    3. The main threats to The BBQ Recovery are the “fiscal cliff” and the
    slowdown in Europe.  In fact, these 2 factors are considered by  IMF
    director Christine Lagarde to be the biggest threats to the world’s
    economy and not just the US economy.

    see: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7423946n

    If we can get past the fiscal cliff, which is far from certain, we
    should be in reasonably good shape, regardless of who is in the White House.

  • Dee

    The alleged New York Bomber and his mother’s challenge

    I am so glad the mother of the alleged bomber is challenging
    the FBI…I would encourage her to bring a racial profile suit 
    against the agency. So often, it seems FBI member go after easy victims such as immigrants & Muslims in the US in their efforts to intimidate and raise fear in the general population.

    There are numerous cases out there of Muslims picked up
    and thrown behind bars as a threat to our national security
    When the real threat it seems to me is how the FBI are vio-
    lating the individual and collective rights of others in fear
    mongering stings.  This practice must be reined in as vio- 
    lates individual and collective rights of certain groups…

    After all, if this young man didn’t harm anyone as FBI
    officials said– the public was never at risk..why publicize 
    and dramatize this unfortunate young man’s designs…

    It seems criminal to lead people on in this manner and 
    then propose they are a risk to society and should be
    placed behind bars. This is fascism in my book……
    Our taxes shouldn’t be misused in this manner…Dee

    See other sting operations and lock ups by the FBI….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_U7nDXrQT8

    • JONBOSTON

      NY Subway advertisement:

      ” In any war between the civilized man and the savage , support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

  • hwatttx

    Re< Obama's record we don't consider the economy was all crash and burn when he took over and he got ZERO co-operation from the Nordquist driven GOP; that is all forgotten.
    That he was to be a one term president was their goal- not a successful jobs plan. 

    • harverdphd

       Not to mention how much more the world loves us now…

  • Potter

    This race should not be close. That it is tells us more about the electorate.

  • Coastghost

    I hadn’t thought about it until I began reading some of the latest background on the Benghazi episode, but: exactly when did the US State Department begin outsourcing security details for our ambassadors? Naively, I’d thought until the past day or so that a US ambassador, even or especially one in as volatile an environment as Libya’s, would have a robust US military escort at all times, with supporting intelligence operatives on hand. THIS kind of outsourcing really bears some close attention: a foreign contractor whose prior level of service consisted of providing security for US customers working IN THE UNITED KINGDOM was picked (by someone, if we ever learn who) to guard Ambassador Stevens and his entourage in Benghazi, Libya, on the eleventh anniversary of the original 11 Sep attack. –No rush for any answers to this, it’s only been five weeks now . . .

    • harverdphd

       Nobody cares about Hillary anymore, but she might have something to say.

      • Coastghost

        Yeh, but the buck stops with Obama, according to his testimony, and people seem to still care about him. I still find the revelation amazing, but it does begin to explain how the Benghazi compound could be rifled by reporters long before any FBI or other operatives could get to the scene. Were any classified materials or intelligence documents stolen in the interim? Who knows? and who would say? Hillary may shed light on the subject, but if she does so before 6 Nov, I’ll be freshly astonished all over again.

        • 1Brett1

          Oh yeah, reporters know all about the secret cover up, and they have vowed never to say a word…that’s probably it… 

        • 1Brett1

          Your assertions are as ghostly as your sobriquet…

          • Coastghost

            –and flattery will get you somewhere . . . .

    • Mike_Card

      Rumsfeld.

      • Coastghost

        Nahhh, Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, not Secretary of State. Try again.

        • Mike_Card

          Rumsfeld decided embassies didn’t need expensive Marines guarding them, so he pulled as much support for guard duty as he could.  State was a victim of the privitization of otherwise Defense assets; the same way soldiers don’t do KP or work in the Officers’ Clubs anymore.

          • Coastghost

            Even if Rumsfeld did so before 2009 (a link here would be quite welcome), your assertion does not begin to explain how the Obama Administration has handled embassy security. US Embassies still seem to be staffed with regional security officers and Marine security guards; can’t say what situation was on the ground in Tripoli on 11 Sep, but that Ambassador Stevens should be in Benghazi with only a foreign contract security detail boggles minds. Rumsfeld certainly didn’t set THAT up.

          • Mike_Card

            Embassies, yes; consulates, no–Benghazi is a consulate.  Rummy was SecDef twice; he reduced the Marine guard contingents during the implementation of VOLAR during the Ford adinistration.  You can Google it.

          • Coastghost

            If/When I get to it, thanks. Hard to believe anything like that that Rumsfeld may’ve done in the Ford Administration would have remained SOP after the Tehran embassy debacle, though. (Americans failed to appreciate the lessons learned by Russia in the 19th century: Russian envoy Aleksandr Griboyedov was killed by a mob besieging the Russian embassy in Tehran in 1829. Asians play by Asian rules.)

          • Mike_Card

            This is the federal govt–things change REALLY slowly.

            On balance, it probably has been to the benefit of the US taxpayers to have used contractors for some of the security duties–think of all the consulates that HAVEN’T been overrun in the past 35 years.

    • Gregg Smith

      President Obama knew on day one it was Al Qaeda and has yet to tell the American public. That doesn’t fit the narrative of his ending the threat by killing Bin Laden. It’s all about politics for him. I learned today the Ft. Hood attack is still listed as “workplace violence” and not a terrorist attack. Obama is not being honest with us.

      • 1Brett1

        Obama has never even intimated that the threat of terrorism has ended with the “killing of Bin Laden.”

        • Coastghost

          “Has never even intimated”? Never ever even suggested it, never ever implied it, not even in passing? Not him nor his devotees? –See, if NPR really cared about its listeners, it would provide a free link to LexisNexis so we could look this stuff up ourselves. Until otherwise dissuaded, I’m going to guess that Obama has in fact said something to this effect, just because it sounds so characteristically Obamian.

          • 1Brett1

            Anything the man says in public is…well, part of public record. Find him on public record saying the threat from terrorism ended with the killing of Bin Laden. Go ahead. 

            …That was my point. You may be able to find someone, somewhere, who’s heard of Obama, saying they thought terrorism ended when he killed Bin Laden, or you may find someone who heard Bin Laden was killed and might admit they at least thought terrorism is no longer a threat as a result…Whatever it takes for you continue “guessing” that some remote anecdotal evidence might exist…continue, please.

          • Coastghost

            Well, my point was, I kind of sort of think I’ve heard clips of Obama saying some such thing glibly, “we’ve (I’ve) got al Qaeda on the run”, “we’ve (I’ve) taken out their top leaders”, something like that, which would be an implication that, with Osama’s demise, the world is now safe for democracy. (You appreciate how fuzzy things get at this stage of the game.)  I have no transcripts on hand and I won’t repeat the suspicion until I hear or see some support, but it does not sound wholly unfamiliar to my ears.

          • 1Brett1

            Yes, fuzzy. I think we can all appreciate your use of that word. 

            It’s quite a leap to parse what Obama said re: Bin Laden’s death as a clear implication that there is no longer a threat of any terrorism, or that “the world is now safe for democracy,” 

          • Coastghost

            Anyone on this planet who speaks or writes is subject to misconstrual. Any President running for re-election has an incentive to lull voters into a comfortable sense of security just before an election, and I doubt Obama is immune to the appeal of this incentive. Plus, he’s invited the charge with all his Commander-in-Chiefish boasting about taking down bin Laden, a returning space adventurer could innocently think Obama fired the fatal shot himself.

          • http://twitter.com/tunnelman3 jason keedy

            Not sure what you’re looking for here… Are you trying to make this Obama’s WMD moment? It just doesn’t stick.

          • Gregg Smith

            How about telling the truth, Al Qaeda is alive and well. They are a threat to America.

          • Human898
          • Coastghost

            Sorry, I can’t boycott Fox News, I already don’t watch them.

          • Human898

            That’s not the point, is it?  Do you mostly listen to NPR or are you mostly accusing NPR listeners of being misinformed or less informed compared to you and your source(s) of information?

          • Coastghost

            If I’ve learned anything from my years of listening to NPR newscasts, I’ve learned to listen critically, with skepticism. I do not take any NPR items at face value, because I’m hearing both what is being said and what is NOT being said. What is NOT being said regularly on NPR could not be covered given the size of the CPB’s $445 million annual budget (FY 2012); but NPR could do much better if it wanted to. NPR has become the captive of its own narratives, and the “diversity” it champions regularly fails to speak to the broad spectrum of humanity I’ve observed when not listening to NPR. And I listen to NPR less and less each month, which is why I was not posting to this site for most of the month of October.

      • hennorama

        While I agree that the Obama admin. has been less than clear in their public communications about the attack in Benghazi, I feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

        There are many possible reasons for being “opaque” in public communications about this attack, but this is the one that I give the greatest import:

        Merely acknowledging certain aspects of the Benghazi mission could compromise “sources and methods” and expose US and other allied covert personnel to identification and potential harm.  Remember, the attack involved not only our consulate, but also a reported CIA base of operations/safe house.

        Remember too that this was a deadly attack on the US, in a foreign country.  We should be rallying around the administration in their efforts to find those responsible, and to prosecute them with extreme prejudice.

        The old adage “Politics ends at the water’s edge” should still apply, regardless of your political views, especially during a presidential race.

        • Coastghost

          A lot of people on this site, you included, use the word “should” with reckless abandon, as if it connotes or denotes some moral imperative. (Granted, it’s one of Obama’s favorite words, too, and helps show just how pedestrian his moral and ethical sensibilities are.) It does not: “should” is merely the apotheosis of preferred outcomes. So no: we can very well be asking our Commander-in-Chief just what the circumstances are concerning the murder of one of our able ambassadors, because our President is responsible for OUR security, too. I expect him to be as forthcoming as possible, and neither he nor his State Department is being forthcoming. By now, even these practiced hands know how to divulge facts without compromising national security. Telling us plainly who picked a foreign contractor to provide security for an American ambassador in strife-ravaged Libya is a question I’d like to hear answered BEFORE the election, frankly: next week in Boca Raton would be a fine place and time to cough up the answers finally, some six weeks after the event.

          • Human898

            So a firm formerly known as “Blackwater” means nothing to you with regard to the use of mercenaries? What difference the nationality? We expect them to be loyal to us when we are the highest bidder. When it comes to choosing money or faith, as with Mr. Romney, which will they choose when confronted with an opportunity to express their anger at their faith being insulted? How about the Mujahideen of the 80′s in Afghanistan, those Reagan declared to be “Freedom Fighters”?

            Was this “organized group” a terrorist organization?
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17995427

            Yet Mr. Romney wants us to back a side in Syria. Which “side” would that be?

          • Coastghost

            Blackwater is not a FOREIGN contractor, they were based in northeastern North Carolina last I heard, and before that their headquarters was in Michigan, I think. (They changed their name to Xe or something like that, didn’t they?)

          • Human898

            So are you trying to suggest that American based corporations have some loyalty to their nation as opposed to their profit margin?   Why don’t global multinationals registered as U.S. corps agree with you?

            Timothy McVeigh was from what nation and based where? Your point is what?

            Yes, Blackwater changed its name, that’s why I referred to them as “formerly know as”. Do you recall they ran into some trouble and what it was and how that might relate to their name change?

          • Coastghost

            That’s what finally set this ball rolling for me: that a FOREIGN contractor should be providing security for a US ambassador. Boggles minds, I say.

          • hennorama

            Thank you for your response.

            Please don’t get me wrong – I too feel that we deserve a full and complete investigation and explanation, regardless of where it leads or who is involved.

            I realize also that it’s unfortunately a reality that anything and everything is now fodder for the news cycle, talking heads, bloggers, pundits, online forums, and partisan politics.

            Politics is definitely involved now, on both sides. This is an unfortunate result of the divisive nature of the current state of US political affairs and discourse.

            I fully anticipated a such a response to my somewhat antiquated and genteel desire for a return to some level of political civility. I realize it’s pretty much a fool’s errand on my part.

            C’est la vie.

          • Gregg Smith

            You’re not asking a lot. It’s the least we should expect.

          • Coastghost

            Saved by italicization! (Glad I was not eating or drinking when I read!) We do have every reason to expect as forthcoming an explanation as possible. I cannot see how any US embassy’s or any US ambassador’s security could be entrusted to a FOREIGN security detail, and knowing just who secured their services would be nice to know BEFORE the election rather than after. –Something is rotten in this case, and this time it’s not in Denmark. 

        • anamaria23

          Nice comment.  Gov. Romney in the immediate aftermath of the attack could have demonstrated mature leadership by advising  not a rush to judgement, an offer of support for the nation at a terrible time and even “how can I help”
          So much was not known and needed to be learned.

          • hennorama

            Thank you for your kind response.

            Mr. Romney should have, AT MINIMUM, expressed condolence for the loss of American life. Instead, before we even knew the status of or even the whereabouts of all American personnel in Benghazi, before we knew Amb. Stevens was dead, before the families of those injured and killed had been notified, Mr. Romney issued the following statement:

            “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

            I’ve made multiple comments on this topic, including this somewhat lengthy one from Sept. 13th, which was my first. It still holds. (apologies for the repetition and length):

            “Here we are, 2 days after the demonstrations at and subsequent breach of the US Embassy in Cairo, and about a day and a half after protests and subsequent deadly attacks at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. At this point, not all the facts are known, and investigations are ongoing.

            We have lost a US Ambassador, and 3 other foreign service workers in the attack in Libya.

            This is horrible and reprehensible and indefensible.

            Unfortunately, this attack in Libya, and the protest and embassy breach in Egypt and newer attacks in Yemen and elsewhere are being used as fodder for political attacks in the US Presidential race.

            This is disgraceful.

            What is most shocking is that the Romney campaign released a statement attacking Pres. Obama, not with the benefit of having all the facts or having even a modicum of hindsight, but instead barely 2 hours after reports came out of Libya that 1 American was shot and killed in the attack.

            Keep in mind that at this point, the total number of casualties was not confirmed, some US personnel were unaccounted for, and the attack had just been stopped. It was not clear at this point that Ambassador Stevens was dead.

            The Romney campaign issued their statement just minutes after Secretary of State Clinton had confirmed that a US official had been killed in Libya. Again, note that the full extent of the casualties was not confirmed at this point.

            In a crass move, the Romney campaign requested that the press embargo their statement until midnight, so they wouldn’t appear to be criticizing the President on Sept. 11th. They lifted this embargo about 10:30 PM.

            RNC chairman Preibus waited until exactly 1 minute after Sept. 11th, and tweeted his criticism at 12:01 AM on the 12th. How restrained.

            It has become evident that Mr. Romney and his campaign believe that no tactic is off limits, and that propriety and custom be damned.

            Mr. Romney, have you no shame? Did you learn nothing from your father? Are there no limits to what you will do, no depths too low?”

          • Human898

            In addition, one might note that a “terrorist attack” is a general statement and in many ways assumes that any attack upon Americans in a Muslim nation (sometimes here) has to be 1.) a “terrorist attack” and 2.) backed, initiated and carried out by some branch of al Qaeda.

            Why no considerations that based on the demonstrations in Cairo and in the middle east in general in the past regarding a Danish cartoon, spontaneous terrorist like violence is an impossibility?

            Here’s a link to a spontaneous violent attack upon the Libyan PM’s office.  Why is this so different?

            Why no consideration of locallly still heavily armed groups, terrorist or not, that could spontaneously perform acts of terror based on any catalyst, especially an “infidel” one?

            Why, as has been mentoned, were there no precautionary tales provided by Mr. Romney about jumping to conclusions, before or in conjunction with mention that he believed based on what sources he was privy to (which were what?) that a specific terrorist group was responsible for the attack based on their groups standard motive (which is what exactly?) ?   

            Instead all we saw was a candidate for POTUS close to an election date not just second guess the POTUS, but accuse the POTUS of a mischaracterized response.

            Since, all we have seen is continued pressure to assert some sort of coverup and lax responsibility even as an investigation is underway and inconclusive bits and pieces revealed daily.

            It is interesting to me that some calling for the truth appear to be trying to present their own version of it.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            There was nothing wrong with Romney’s statement condemning the Cairo embassy statement.

            The WH disavowed it too. Hillary ordered pulled. So you must an issue with their actions too?

            The entire thing was blown out of proportion by the press.

            We should always stand up fo American principles.

          • hennorama

            Thank you for your response.

            Rather than reply individually, I have posted a lengthy comment on Benghazi, which begins “They made up a story.”

            Thanks again for your response.

        • Human898

          In addition there are separate interviews with Mr. Obama and Ms. Rice and the consideration that what Mr. Obama was privy to had not yet reached Ms. Rice before her first interview, there was no clarity regarding it and authority to speak in detail about it prior to more investigation.  Nor is there any consideration mentioned for some measure of thorough investigation before coming to absolute conclusions for all number of reasons.  For all those that point to the mother of one of those killed, the mother of another Seal who was killed who protested Mr. Romney’s characterization of his “knowing” her son as false, gets left to the side. 

          Unfortunately the Romney camp and their supporters appear to have a distinct problem with supplying all sides and the whole truth.  Yes, they may believe that by telling partial truths, they can somehow avoid being accused of lying, but intentional omission is deceptive and deception can be considered lying.  Mr, Romney claims a lot of credit for himself, but further research and people coming forward reveal that it was not the way Mr. Romney characterized it and in a number of cases, contrary to what Mr. Romney has claimed as his doing, were not his doing, but his riding off of what others initiated or supplied.

          I was a Republican, I own a business, I’ve heard the marketing and campaign strategies of my colleagues. Mine is not like some of theirs which is to be less than absolutely forthcoming with the negatives as well as the rosy positives, and bet on customers not paying attention to details or the fine print until it is too late for them. I also know business is not run like a democracy, especially privately held business, even though there are democratic aspects and elements involved.

          I will also say without equivocation that my business would not be possible, but for all those that are like the parts of an engine that make it run, some of them with more important roles, some with less important roles, but all of them needed for the engine to run. That’s without mentioning all the infrastructure in place by public dollars that my business would be far less efficient without.

          • hennorama

            Thank you for your response.

            Rather than reply individually, I have posted a lengthy comment on Benghazi, which begins “They made up a story.”

            Thanks again for your response.

        • Gregg Smith

          But they made up a story. 

      • Human898

        Sounds kinda like all the people that “knew”, not only was there an al Qaeda connection to Iraq and 9/11, but WMD near ready to use against the U.S. and Israel in Iraq.   How many more Americans died in Iraq?  How many more than those killed on 9/11/01?   We went into Afghanistan why?  To bring OBL to justice or to annex Afghanistan?   OBL is dead, GWB called him some insignificant figure hiding in a cave, only months after declaring bringing OBL to justice was a “top priority”.  I hope you were just as consistent with your “non-political” “morality” then, as you are now.

        • Gregg Smith

          I’d be glad to chew those canards up and spit them out after the election. Sorry, those folks and those issues aren’t on the ballot.

          • Human898

            No?  Romney is betting his “record” against Mr. Obama’s, but acting as if Mr. Bush’s record never existed relative to Mr. Obama’s.  Voters comparing political parties and policies are wondering how Republican policies suddenly have all the answers when the last time they were in the White House, the WSJ headline was “Worst Crisis Since 30′s, No End Yet In Sight”   To be credible, one has to make sense. To compare records, one must have something to compare them relative to.  Mr. Romney would like someone to believe Mr. Obama’s record exists and has existed in a vacuum, even as he compares what he (Mr. Romney) will do (fantasy), (as opposed to what he’s proven to have done (behind just the rosy stuff pushed forward))with Mr. Obama’s record.

            In the last debate, Mr. Romney repeated twice in a row, that “government does not create jobs” even as he daily criticizes Mr. Obama for not creating them and not creating them himself without running for a government job with the promise to “create jobs”.
             
            The “logic” is incredulous and unless one is naive or ignorant, the shell game being attempted is obvious.

            You can chew on whatever you like, but you don’t control what issues people will be thinking of when weighing how they will mark their ballots.

          • Gregg Smith

            Government does not create jobs. It kills jobs. Getting government out of the way creates jobs. Bush has no affect on the economy today, Obama owns it as he does the Benghazi coverup you are desperately trying to ignore.

          • Coastghost

            With respect to government killing jobs: Obama spent well over $100,000 on EACH job he killed at Solyndra, just to take one of his celebrated R&D initiatives.

          • OnPointComments
      • roseel

        Ft. hood shooter was a restaliation against a retaliation. hasan was a loyal citizen who found himself in the belly of the beast -as a shrink he heard the tales of murder going on in iraq and afghanistan committed by americans.he spoke out -to everyone who would listen-against these wars and was punished for his opposition to these wars by being ordered to go to afghanistan. That was when he carried out the massacres-3 days before being deployed. he specifically had told them he could not go there as he realized listening to the soldiers stories -that these wars were unjust. he-like mcveigh was politicized by the US army.Once he decided he would carry out massacres to avenge the unjust murders of civilians happening in iraq and afghanistan-then he turned to his faith to rationize his murders-just like americans do when they go to war. He was not a jihadist but was angry at first the unjust wars and then when his superiors retaliated against him for speaking out by mandating him to the front-that’s when he retaliated against their retaliation by opening fire on others. So in a sense it was workplace violence and terrorism.but brought on by his being in the belly of the beast and getting politicized by what was happening.

        • Gregg Smith

          Please don’t condone mass murder by a terrorist.

          • 1Brett1

            The military screwed up by ignoring so many warning signs that were right in front of their eyes…and these were supposed to be highly trained psychiatrists and psychologists. 

            I hope Hasan gets whatever most severe punishment can be imposed against him. I also wish the Army could receive some sort of punishment for its inactions. The former is more likely than anything resembling the latter. 

          • Gregg Smith

            I agree with you on all of it. I think we are so freaked out over offending Muslims we go overboard by painting them all with a broad brush. They are not all peace loving fuzz balls. Hasan was in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki learning how to conduct jihad from within the military. All the signs were there, it was willful disregard. Obama doesn’t want the taint of terrorist attacks on his watch but changing the label or narrative does not change squat. It does not defeat the enemy.

          • roseel

            I like the way a reason becomes a justification. That is typical of our false narrative.When we kill we have reasons  and we are justified but when they kill they are dehumanized[simply labeled terrorist].But that false narrative [he was part of a terrorist cell] is what I am debunking.He retaliated against their retaliation[that is typical of the reasons for workplace violence].I like the way you say we should not condone mass murder by a terrorist-Are you leaving open mass murder by a non terrorist?You’re motiviated by your political agenda[ geopolitical-when we kill it's good when they kill they're evil] not by anything real[like he retaliated against their retaliation and hearing tales of murder being committed by soldiers]. He was in the belly of the beast.

          • Coastghost

            He could perhaps more easily have resigned his commission (he attained the rank of major, correct?). I don’t know what the Military Code of Justice looks like these days, but if he doesn’t get the death penalty for murder, he might likely get it simply for treason.

          • roseel

            I’m sure he’ll get the death penalty. He is a murderer after all.Many others deserve to be tried for premeditated murder too. Like alan west for one. He’s  a war criminal-a torturer and murderer.But of course you’re right -he[hasan] was not justified in massacreing people. My point was that he was politicized by the us army-he wasn’t some sleeper cell or member of alqyada. Once he was determined to carry out these massacres he-justified it as defense of muslim and sought out a cleric to validate his belief. As we have clerics in christianity who bless the “soldiers”who  man the drones from their bases. And Just like alan west justified his murders in the name of his religion-americanism.People pray when they think they might be killed-hence his shouting- god is great- was for him a last prayer as he certainly thought he would be killed for opening fire on  soldiers.

  • harverdphd

     Not mine…we should put him in an orange jumpsuit, chop off his head, put the video on You Tube, and in three days nucleate his homeland…those that survive will love us

  • Michiganjf

    Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon PULLED A ROMNEY/RYAN and said in a debate yesterday:

    “I’ve not talked about specifics when I’ve been on the campaign trail because they get demagogued…”

    … and this AT A DEBATE, where she’s expected to present her views to the public, yet she continued without providing any specifics about much of anything!!!

    HA! AMAZING!!!!

    Romney/Ryan’s EXACT strategy to win the election!!

    IT’S OFFICIAL!!!!

    No Republican candidate for ANY OFFICE will ever again offer a single detail about any policy TO ANY VOTER WHATEVER!!!

    Nope, these brazen Republican DIRTBAGS now know they can ALWAYS count on moronic Republican “voters” to vote them into office no matter the LIE or lack of policy, as all conservatives care about is that “their side wins,” no matter the consequences to America or Americans!!! These morons think they’re rooting for their favorite football team, rather than someone who can run the country with honor, dignity, and intelligence!

    Republicans: THE DEAF, DUMB, AND BLIND VOTE!!!

    … and I DO mean dumb!!!

    These idiots get more and more dispicable every year!!!

    • Human898

      You may be interested in these articles.

      http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/

      http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf

      It might also give some perspective to
      “‘We’re Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers’”  -Neil Newhouse, Romney pollster

      • Michiganjf

        Ha! … figures, of course.

        Thanks for the links.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Boy I hope she wins.

      All my friends and relatives in CT tell me that they are voting for McMahon.  Murphy is a classic hack no show politician.  We need less of those and more hard working reformers.

      • Michiganjf

        Like I said… DEAF, DUMB, AND BLIND!!

        • Mike_Card

          Yeah, but they sure play a mean pinball!

  • Michiganjf

    Romney paid 14% tax on earnings in 2011, and would have paid only 12% in 2012 if he had taken his full deductions, which he fudged just so he would comply with his LIE that he’s never paid less than 14% (why are you still hiding those earlier returns, Romney?)

    Well, now we know that the Super Rich have 21 TRILLION in wealth hidden in offshore accounts!!!!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

    (Thanks to commenter JustEdith for the AWESOME link)

    So we know Romney has much of his wealth stowed “offshore” so he won’t have to pay taxes on it, though no one knows how much he has hidden away.

    The thing is, that means Romney, and others like him, ACTUALLY PAY MUCH LESS ON THEIR INCOME THAN THAT ALREADY PALTRY 12-14%!!!!!!!!!!

    Yup, sure pays to rig everything your way, while you rob the rest into paying for all that infrastructure you need to make all that money in the first place!!!!

    Romney/Ryan for president of SOME OF AMERICA 2012!!

    • Michiganjf

      BTW, 21 trillion is equal to the COMBINED GDP of America AND Japan, according to the article..

      … nah, that wouldn’t make any significant dent in the deficit whatever if we taxed these dirtbags for all that money they’re offshoring, as well as taxing ALL their income at a respectable and DUE rate, would it Righties??!!

      • StilllHere

        So now the government is going to confiscate foreigner’s wealth abroad?  Wow, I fear the America you want.  Sounds like some police state for slackers.

      • Gregg Smith

        And not a penny belongs to the US government.

    • Prodigal Kat

       He won’t produce those tax returns because doing so will prove that he is either a liar to the IRS (and the American people) or he’s a liar to his church and not paying his 10% tithe.

      • StilllHere

        The IRS already has his tax returns and they don’t have a problem with them, whereas you, who have no info and less intelligence, do. Curious.

        • Mike_Card

          And you know that because you are the IRS examiner in charge of reviewing those returns?

      • notafeminista

        He doesn’t need to release his tax returns.  You’ve already demonstrated that whatever is in them is of no matter.  When the tax returns illustrate that what you suggest is clearly not the case, you would still be unhappy.

        Some folks get up every day and look forward to being disappointed.

    • Human898

      This is the more likely reason for Romney not revealing his tax returns.

      “Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.”
      http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continued_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/

      The tax returns could likely add confirmation, not only that his contention he was out of Bain when Bain companies went bankrupt and laid off people, was not the whole truth, but that Mr. Romney, as increasingly observed, seems to make use of partial truths or untruths more often than one might feel confortable with.

    • StilllHere

      So hidden we know how much is there?
      How much is American’s?
      Any evidence they aren’t paying taxes on it?
      How much did Romney make on his?
      What percent of the US federal budget would this represent?

    • Gregg Smith

      Obama has money invested in offshore accounts.

      • Michiganjf

        Yeah… SURE he does…

        • Gregg Smith

          Romney nailed him on it. You’ll catch up in a day or two.

          • Human898

            I believe most people are not fooled by what Mr. Romney was trying to disperse, even if you may be.

          • Michiganjf

            You’ve got that right!

            The line worked for Romney when he used it on Gingrich, so Romney thought he could xerox it on Obama… problem is, Obama’s not another feckless Repugnican!

          • Mike_Card

            Just as the Newt is the stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like, the President is Willard’s idea of what just one more drop-out from the clown car looks like.

            Romney will be allowed to continue his quest to buy the presidency for 4 more years, since he seems to be qualified for nothing else.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             It turns out that Obama has  a bigger pension than Romney too.

          • hennorama

            This is such a silly argument that I assume it must be stricly “tongue-in-cheek.”
             
            While your post is factual, since Mr. Romney has no “pension” per se, it’s highly misleading.
             
            Mr. Romney has an IRA that could be worth in the neighborhood of $87 million, perhaps even as high as $100 million.  If he converted this into cash, then got even a miniscule yield, the annual income alone would easily exceed Pres. Obama’s Federal pension.  Without touching a single penny of principal.
             
            On $87 million, a yield of a mere 0.22% would give Mr. R $191,400 annually, which exceeds the annual Federal pension of $191,300 Pres. Obama qualifies for as President.
             
            This doesn’t take Pres. Obama’s Illinois pension into account, nor does it take Mr. Romney’s other vast wealth into account.
             
            The difference here is so great, it’s just silly to compare.
             
            source:http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/10/18/fact-obama-has-bigger-pension-romney#ixzz29sXpz3eG

          • Mike_Card

            Obama’s 3-point shot is miles better than Willard’s; what in hell does either have to do with anything?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Politifact confirmed Obama’s pension invests in the Caymen’s just as Romney said.

          http://www.examiner.com/article/trouble-paradise-obama-has-offshore-investments-cayman-islands

      • Mike_Card

        Citation, please?

      • hennorama

        Here’s the actual info on this topic:

        Pres. Obama was an Illinois state senator for 7 years, and is a participant in the General Assembly Retirement System (GARS) in Illinois.  According to the president’s ethics filings, this account is valued at between $50,000 and $100,000.

        The Illinois pension fund has numerous foreign investments.  The GARS  2011 annual report indicates, as part of its diversified portfolio, it had 19% (actually 19.422%) of its $11.5 billion invested outside the U.S., including holdings in many Chinese companies.  This is as of June 30, 2011.

        source:http://www.state.il.us/srs/PDFILES/oldAnnuals/GARS11.pdf

        So, Pres. Obama’s account’s total foreign investments in his Illinois pension would be a maximum of $19,422.

        GARS executive director William Atwood indicated that the pension fund has invested $30 million in a limited partnerships, Advent International GPE VI-A. That partnership was organized in the Cayman Islands.  Advent has described itself as “one of the world’s most global private equity firms” and has offices in 16 countries.

        $30 million compared to a total of $11,498,251,354 in the fund is a tiny fraction – 0.26%.  So, Pres. Obama’s account’s total Caymans-related investments in his pension would be a maximum $260.

        Wow.  $260 bucks, max.  Other sources put the Advent investment value at $17 million, which would be an even tinier 0.15%, or $150 bucks.

        The Romney campaign said the comparison between the Illinois pension and Mr. Romney’s estimated $190 million to $250 million portfolio was justified.

        sources:http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/17/inside-obamas-tiny-caymans-investment/

        http://www.examiner.com/article/trouble-paradise-obama-has-offshore-investments-cayman-islands
        In addition, Pres. Obama has investments is the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund, a diversified mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 stock index.  Many of these largest US companies have international operations, including operations in China.  Obama’s disclosures show he holds between $150,000 and $350,000 in the fund, representing more indirect foreign investment

        source:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/17/romney-counters-foreign-investment-jab-by-pointing-to-chinese-firms-in-obama/

        It’s not terribly easy to analyze the level of foreign involvement of the S&P 500 companies, but overall they likely get somewhere between 25% and 45% of sales and/or earnings from their operations outside the US.

        If we use the 45% figure (again, this is a guesstimate), we come up with a maximum value of $157,500.  Adding the GARS max foreign investment, we come up with a MAX of $176,922.  Nothing to sneeze at, but not exactly enormous.

        Oh yeah, and Caymans investments of $150 to $260 bucks.

        So, yes indeed, Pres. Obama has passive investments in widely diversified investment funds that contain some level of foreign investments and involvement.

        The Romney campaign said the comparison between the Illinois pension  and Mr. Romney’s estimated $190 million to $250 million portfolio was justified.

        An Obama spokesman called the comparison “an absurd false equivalence.”

        Decide for yourself.

      • Mike_Card

        Obama’s pension accounts own securities in foreign companies traded on foreign exchanges.  Anyone with a 401(K) retirement account owns similar securities through mutual funds; a share of GE is an “offshore account” in that sense.

        Hardly the same thing as tax-advantaged investment partnerships–or, as they’re more commonly known–tax shelters.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Romney paid a higher effective rate than 93% of tax filers – source politifact.

      If Romney’s 2011 charitable giving ($4M) was the same as Joe Biden’s ($1,700) then Romney’s effective tax rate would be 19%.

      Further, we know about Romney’s investments because the financial disclosures. There is nothing ‘hidden’. The financial disclosures give more info than tax returns.

    • Human898

      People also tend to forget that Romney does not pay payroll taxes on all income above the upper limit for those taxes and pays 15% (relative to the marginal rate for his gross income) because the tax (government) laws are written the way they are.

      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/18/us/effective-income-tax-rates.html

      In addtion, Mr. Romney fits into a smaller segment of the 1% of Americans that fit into the 1% income category.  That means he makes more that 99% of Americans and a percentage more than even those that fit into the 1% category.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Why should he pay payroll tax?  He doesn’t have an earned income aka payroll income.

        • Human898

          Thanks WftC. you have pointed out how “in touch” Mr. Romney is and who is going to benefit most from getting rid of the capital gains tax.  Interesting that Mr. Romney speaks of the 47% when most of Mr. Romney’s income, as you reiterated is unearned.  

          What has Mr. Romeny been doing since he left Bain Capital (when did he actually do that?)  Has he been creating jobs?  If so, why is he complaining about unemployment rates and looking for a government job so he can “create jobs” by government action?

          Most Americans aren’t fooled as you appear to be.

        • hennorama

          Actually, Mr. Romney does have earned income, in fact he had $450,740 of it in 2011. 

          $190,350 in author/speaking fees and $260,390 in director’s fees.  These are self-employment income and are subject to self-employment tax.  Mr. Romney paid $23,179 in SE tax, which amounts to a rate of 5.14%.

          Much lower than the typical Social Security & Medicare taxes paid by the typical wage earner.

          Mr. Romney used 2 significant tax breaks to get such a low rate.

          1.  Mr. Romney gets to first subtract a portion (7.65%, equaling $34,482) of his SE income as an adjustment to his income.  The remainder of $416,258 is subject to SE tax, and income tax.  So this break saves on two different taxes – SE tax AND Federal income tax (actually three, if you count state taxes, which aren’t part of this discussion).

          2. Next, he pays Social Security taxes of 10.4% (6.2% + 4.2%) only on the first $106,800, and Medicare tax (2.9%) on the full $416,258.  This results in the SE tax total of $23,179.  This is a significant tax break for high income self-employed people.

          The fact that Mr. Romney does not have to pay Soc. Sec. tax on his full SE income saved him $32,183.

          Of course, the $416,258 (Gross of $450,740 less the $34,482 adjustment to income) is also subject to income tax as well, as I said above.

          So – in 2011, the typical wage earner, who has income under the $106,800 SS tax limit, paid payroll taxes at the rate of 7.1% (the reduced SS tax @ 4.2% + Medic. tax @ 2.9%).

          Mr. Romney paid 5.14%.

          Oh yeah – he also deducted no wages paid on his SE income, so he created zero jobs related to his self-employment.

          Way to go, Mr. Job Creator!

    • TomK_in_Boston

      It’s so bizarre, the right scream about the Big Bad Deficit and think it’s A-OK for Lord R et al to pay 13% or less. Also, don’t forget about the gutting of the estate tax. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

      They love to say how wonderful it is that RR have “a plan”. Some plan! The 1,999,999′th repetition of “tax cuts ‘n deregulation”, more military spending, more attacks on SS and medicare. That’s about as appealing as “a plan” to stick bamboo splinters under my fingernails.

      The even shorter version of the RR “plan”: class warfare.

  • Coastghost

    Yoohoo, Jason Keedy, up here! (I can’t reply in column widths of less than four characters.) What I’m looking for is: who in the Obama Administration approved the outsourcing of Ambassador Stevens’ security to a FOREIGN security contractor? Was it someone in the State Department, or was it someone in the White House? Hillary has confessed blankly that embassy security is her responsibility, but she has not confessed explicitly that she herself approved outsourcing embassy security in Libya to a foreign contractor, the bulk of whose previous work seems to have consisted of providing security within the United Kingdom (not quite the hotspot that Libya has been of late). Oh, and: who in the White House knew about these arrangements, and when did they learn about these arrangements? I’m not equating this episode with anything from the Bush Administration, since I can’t see any close parallel.

    • Human898

      From the Inman Report, 1985

      “International law and custom hold the host government responsible for the protection of diplomatic missions. However, the United States and other nations often supplement security forces provided by the host government. The United States uses Marine Security Guards and local contract guards for this purpose. This program is particularly important in those numerous cases where the host is unable, or unwilling, to provide our overseas posts with adequate security. In this section of the report, the Panel provides comments and recommendations concerning local guard forces and Marine Security Guard Detachments.”

      See also, the Local Guard Program
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/41780202/Local-Guard-Program

      • Coastghost

        Thanks, Human898. Benghazi would apparently fall into the category of “those numerous cases”. Note that “local contract guards” in Benghazi, too, were being overseen not by a Libyan contractor but by a security firm from the UK, which contracted locals in Libya, and that someone in the US chain of command was assigned with the task of vetting the foreign contractor and assessing the capabilities of the locals that the contractor hired. Due diligence in these regards seems to have been not so diligent.

        • Human898

          Yes, “Due diligence” would be investingating things more fully before coming to one’s own conclusions, would you not agree?   Especially a man who wanted to become president of the United States in saying something to undercut a current president before knowing all the facts himself.

          Apparently you were ready to jump on the notion that the use of local contractors was the invention of the Obama adminstration, were you not?

          I would say the failings of “due diligence” after the fact is quite easy for those intentionally looking for a crack, would you not agree?

          One might also note attacks in the past on U.S. diplomatic facilities where death occurred, yet no such calls regarding a president’s failure to protect.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

          • Coastghost

            No, apparently I wasn’t. When I look down at my post from fifteen hours ago, my first question asked just when this circumstance arose. What is also apparent is that, no matter now when the circumstance arose, how the Obama Administration handled and juggled the circumstances has become a political issue, but I belabor the obvious. Examining due diligence “after the fact” is what human beings are constrained to do by temporality all the time, every day: ask a trusted reporter or editor at NPR if you doubt my word. Also, asking germane questions is not necessarily quite as simple as you suggest: think for one moment of all the questions that never receive satisfactory answers. 

          • Human898

            Please, we can all see your postings and the direction you were heading.  Your big deal was the thought of a FOREIGN contractor, you made no mention that you understood or even knew about the common practice of The Local Guard Program (please reread your own posts)

          • Coastghost

            YOU re-read my posts if your aim is to become self-appointed thought policeman. I DID mention the UK connection in the very post I cited. No, I wasn’t aware of the protocols for embassy and consulate security, that’s why I began asking my questions. I gave you credit for helping supply some answers, but other questions persist which are perfectly legitimate, even if you find them distasteful. Speaking truth to power’s a bitch, hunh?

          • Human898

            You said thank you, then went on with a dig regarding proper vetting.  I responded and you continue to point to details, the very thing neither you nor Mr. Romney had before making your allegations. Yes, truth is a bitch and there are some that assume they knew what the truth was before knowing it and even as they were and are asking questions about it.

    • http://twitter.com/tunnelman3 jason keedy

      I think Human898 just answered your question. 

  • pete18
    • Human898

      Anyone hear the word “video” here?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8mmHr12rM&feature=plcp

      Who’s being dishonest?

      Let’s also take a look at Mr. Romney’s words and consider the “facts” he could have known at the time and his making a such a statement, ignorant of having all the facts.  
      http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/12/transcript-mitt-romneys-press-conference-on-the-attacks-in-egypt-and-cairo/

      When asked about his own jumping of the gun, here is what Romney said, regarding Mr. Obama’s standing up for the right of free speech in America.

      “I don’t think we ever hesitate when we see something which is a violation of our principles. we express immediately when we feel that the president and his administration have done something which is thanconsistent with the principles of america. simply put, having an embassy which has been breached and has protestors on its grounds. having violated the sovereignty of the united states. having to embassy reiterating a statementapologizing for the right of free speech is not the right course for an administration.”

      Here is more on the statement Mr. Romney appears to have mischaracterized and used as a means to try to drive a wedge for his own political gain.

      “Romney was referring to a statement that the U.S. embassy in Egypt issued condemning the “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” But that embassy statement, which the White House has distanced itself from, was in reference to an anti-Islam movie and anti-Islam pastor Terry Jones, and it came out BEFORE the embassy attacks began.”
      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-v-romney-free-speech_652239.html

      Key word is that the statement came out BEFORE the attacks began and it was doing exactly what Mr. Romney suggested was correct, which was to stand up for the American value of free speech.  It did apologize to Muslims offended by the content of that free speech.  Mr. Romney seems to have a real problem with the whole truth and making use of partial truths and spin to benefit himself.  In many cases aside from these, Mr. Romney claims credit for himself when the whole truth is the credit is mostly due to other factors and other people.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/politics/04mideast.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&amp;

      • OnPointComments

        ŸTuesday, about 6 a.m., before the attack in Benghazi (all times Eastern)
        Statement From the U.S. Embassy in Cairo 
         
        The embassy released this statement, apparently referring to a provocative anti-Islam video, in an effort to cool tensions in the area. The statement came before protests on the American embassy in Cairo and the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi:
         
        “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
         
        The attack in Benghazi occurred in the evening on Tuesday, Libya time — about midafternoon on the East Coast in the United States.
         
        Tuesday, about 6:30 p.m. In Twitter Message, U.S. Embassy Stands by Statement
         
        The American embassy in Cairo sends a message on Twitter that it “still stands” by their initial statement. The message was later deleted.
         
        “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.”

  • Human898

    More on Benghazi – A war of words and misinterpretations – Please listen to entire story.
    http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/10/16/libya-attack-dispute

    Also what others said in the past regarding offensive “freedom of speech”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/politics/04mideast.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&amp;

  • hennorama

    “They made up a story.  They lied.  They changed their story.  We don’t know the whole truth.  It didn’t fit their narrative about …”

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Obama administration has some super sensitive secret about Benghazi that they are trying to hide, for fear that A) Pres. Obama won’t be re-elected, B) Sec. Clinton would have to resign, ending her political career and a possible Presidential run in 2016, or C) some other reason.

    A) & B) are really what Republicans/Conservatives/Rupert Murdoch-Roger Ailes-FoxNews-Rush Limbaugh et al care about, right?

    The facts in this case will never all be made public, due to the CIA involvement.  Those facts that can safely be made public will be, and many already have been.

    Even now, the story is evolving.  The LA Times released an article last night, titled “No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack”

    see: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020,0,95514.story

    If Mr. Romney and his allies truly cared about the facts, they would never have released the horribly muddled, factually inaccurate, insensitive political statement on Sept. 11, 2012, practically in the heat of battle in Benghazi.  They would have waited for the facts, or at least they would have waited to learn the facts about who had died in Benghazi, which were unknown at the time.

    Instead, their “outrage” is all politically motivated.

    Don’t get me wrong, I want and expect a full and complete investigation and accounting of the facts and circumstances of this attack.  But the facts are only important to Mr. Romney if they can be used for political advantage.

    Context:  Romney wanted/needed a foreign policy issue

    On May 17, 2012 in his infamous Boca Raton “47%” speech, while discussing foreign policy, and the Iranian hostage crisis and the Reagan connection, Mr. Romney said “…the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq … if something of that nature [such as the Iranian hostage crisis] presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.” [insertion added for clarity]

    Not to get the facts or to solve the problem – “… to take advantage of the opportunity.”

    source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video#hostages

    Then on Aug. 30th,  Mr. Romney failed to even mention U.S. troops and the war in Afghanistan in his nomination acceptance speech.  As a result, he was widely excoriated and chastised by Republicans and Democrats alike.

    Mr. Romney got no “convention bounce” and was in fact dropping in national polls, and Pres. Obama was rising.  Gallup had the race tied at 46% in late August.  Just before the Benghazi attack, on Sept. 10, 2012, Gallup had it Obama 50% Romney 44%, Romney’s lowest level since late April.

    On Aug. 16th, Rasmussen had it as Romney 45% Obama 44%, then had it as Obama 46% Romney 44% on Sept. 8, 2012.

    source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/US-Presidential-Election-Center.aspx

    Comparable scenarios:

    9/11/2001 – Pres. Bush failed to prevent the attacks even after the infamous “Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US” Presidential Daily Brief was given to him while he was on vacation on August 6, 2001.  Nearly 3000 people died in these attacks.

    Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

    Oklahoma City bombing – on April 19, 1995 the blast at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building claimed 168 lives.  This was on the 2nd anniversary of the David Koresh/Branch Davidians Waco fiasco – why wasn’t security at all Federal buildings beefed up on this anniversary?

    “Blame the victim”

    Did Pres. Bush kill those who died on 9/11?  Did Pres. Clinton kill the people who died in the OKC bombing?

    Of course not.  That’s why we don’t blame them and instead go after the true evildoers, and hold them accountable.

    THAT’S what we should be focused on here.  Let’s find those responsible for this attack, and hold them to account.  Everything else is just noise, and won’t change the fact that 4 brave Americans are dead.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Let’s be upfront and say that it is difficult to be objective during a political season.  That said, the administration lost good will with the people in their lack of open communication  in the Fast and Furious fiasco.

      9/11?
      Remember Jamie Garelick? The Clinton official who set up a firewall preventing the CIA and FBI from communicating about terrorist intel.  There was a lot of hand ringing and blame on Bush for not preventing the attack.

      Libya:
      The entire ‘blame the video’ narrative put forward for 2 weeks still needs explanation.  It is either deceit or incompetence (CIA and state not communicating).  We know that the State dept. intel knew this was a pre-planned attack within 24 hours.  Susan Rice works for State.  The CIA had talking points that there crowds forming.  Do these people talk?

      More troubling is that there were reports that Stevens requested increased security because he was concerned about attacks and threats on his life.  The most recent cable requesting more security happened on the DAY of the attack — 9/11/2012.  Is this what the admin was trying to obfuscate?

      I’m sorry but something smells here.  If they had just come out and said we are investigating instead of pushing this film narrative you might have a point to stay calm and wait it out but that isn’t what happened.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062420490836106.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

      • hennorama

        OK, let’s say your worst suspicions/fears are realized and confirmed. What difference would it make? Would that change your mind about who to vote for? Would it change enough minds to make a difference in the Presidential election?

        That’s the bottom line that matters to Mr. Romney and friends, and nothing more. Pure politics.

        As I said, the facts will come out, at least the ones that can safely be made public given national security and covert operations concerns. Investigations are ongoing and will get it all out in the open, but those investigations won’t bring back the 4 dead Americans, nor will they find those responsible for their deaths and bring them to justice.

        And that’s what truly matters, at least to me.

        • Coastghost

          Yeh, what difference would it make if Obama were lying simply for the sake of political expediency? He promised us years ago that he would be the 21st Century’s (what am I saying?!? the entire Third Millennium’s!) standard bearer for truth-telling, transparency, and accountability; but why hold him to those noble ideals now? This is another election, times have already changed. He’s not promising truth-telling, transparency, or accountability THIS election cycle, after all. Obama’s openness truly doesn’t matter any longer, does it? –Or, just call his Administration’s practices “The New Transparency” . . . .

          • StilllHere

            Time to hit the reset button.

    • Gregg Smith

      We know it was Al Qaeda, it’s not a secret. They raised their flag, Obama has yet to say it. If it wasn’t Al Qaeda it was at their behest. It doesn’t matter, it was a coordinated terrorist attack that had nothing to do with a stupid video. They were not waiting for intelligence to flesh out, they knew, The State Department knew, the CIA knew and alerted the White house. They proactively spread the false narrative pulled out of their butts. I don’t believe anything they say about it now. When Obama was told our Ambassador was dead, he went to bed. He left for Vegas the next morning without meeting with his security team.

      Bush was a devil worshiping kitten mangler, alright? Duly noted. So what? Don’t excuse this travesty.

      • hennorama

        I’m not excusing anything. I want all the facts, too, regardless of who did what when and where.

        I said nothing against Pres. Bush. My post used the original 9/11 attacks for comparison purposes only, without passing judgment. As I said, we don’t hold Pres. Bush responsible for the 9/11 attacks, because it’s unreasonable to do so.

        I don’t think anyone “know(s) it was Al Qaeda” with certainty. Short of capturing those responsible and getting them to confess, it’s difficult/unreasonable to profess certainty as to their motive(s).

        I just said the following to “Worried” and am interested in your view:

        “OK, Let’s say your worst suspicions/fears are realized and confirmed. What difference would it make? Would that change your mind about who to vote for? Would it change enough minds to make a difference in the Presidential election?

        That’s the bottom line that matters to Mr. Romney and friends, and nothing more. Pure politics.

        As I said, the facts will come out, at least the ones that can safely be made public given national security and covert operations concerns. Investigations are ongoing and will get it all out in the open, but those investigations won’t bring back the 4 dead Americans, nor will they find those responsible for their deaths and bring them to justice.

        And that’s what truly matters, at least to me.”

        • Gregg Smith

          Do you agree we knew it wasn’t the movie when they said it was the movie?

          • hennorama

            Regardless of my opinion on this matter, and it would only be an opinion rather than a statement of actual factual knowledge, my contention is that this entire controversy is irrelevant, other than in a political sense.

            As I’ve said, let’s assume the worst is true. Let’s say everyone involved, all the way up to and including Pres. Obama, VP Biden, Sec. Clinton, etc. are lying and/or concealing material facts. Let’s also say this is not discovered or proven until after the election, and Pres. Obama is reelected.

            There’s still a remedy, right? After all, the Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

          • Gregg Smith

            The people need to make an informed decision.

          • OnPointComments

            I agree.  Better to make an informed decision before the election than to correct a mistake afterward.

          • notafeminista

            You didn’t answer the question.

      • Mike_Card

        http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020,0,95514.story

        Alert the LA Times; you–and whoever else makes it “we”–have a source they need.

        • Gregg Smith

          I am aware of the LA Times story as well as the Ignatius piece in the Post. They are desperately trying to cover their butts before the debate with these leaks. It won’t wash.

          • Mike_Card

            I must be a real simpleton to rely more heavily on the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times.

          • Gregg Smith

            You said it.

          • Mike_Card

            So tell us:  where does your superior inforation come from?

          • StilllHere

            Excellent point.

          • http://twitter.com/tunnelman3 jason keedy

            We all agree this was a tragedy, no matter what the circumstance. The really tragic thing about it now is that the GOP strategists are trying to spin this as Obama’s Iran hostage or WMD moment. 
            The fact was relayed earlier: Romney simply does not have a foreign policy issue, so now, just like he told us, he is going to take advantage of any prospective issue so he can make some political hay. 

          • StilllHere

            No spin required.  It is a 3am moment that Hillary warned us about, and he failed.

          • Human898

            The only thing that won’t wash is that Mr. Romeny was speculating, pure and simple and using generalized terms regarding “terrorists” and splitting hairs with terminology, definitions and what is being referred to when.  Mr. Romeny has a big problem with the whole truth when it a partial truth works much better for him amongst those not willing to do more than read a talking point and nod their head in agreement. 

            Education, being well informed and investigative skills, perhaps even investigations in general are a threat to Mr. Romeny because the whole truth comes out and what Mr. Romeny claims credit for, so far has been found more often than not, to be someone else’s doing or successful, not because of Mr. Romeny, but some other greater factor or factor not admitted to by Mr. Romney because it takes credit away from him.   Check out his claims about binders on women, the Olympics (what the republican he lost the nomination to in 2008 called a huge pork barrel funded by American tax payers.   Why has Mr. Romney not released at least as many tax returns as his father, the leader in that transparency?  Could it have something to do with showing his income and position in Bain Capital after he said he left?  

            While Mr. Romeny’s camp seems to believe a full court press on Mr. Obama will benefit them, they don’t seem to recognize that not all eyes are on only Mr. Obama, but the Romney camp and their underwear is showing.  Being ecocentric and myopic tends to cause some problems.  Perhaps why vanity is considered a sin, humility a virtue, you know, “I built that” versus “you had help” thing?

        • OnPointComments

          “Spinning Benghazi”10:56 AM, Oct 20, 2012 • By THOMAS JOSCELYN
           
          Ahead of what is sure to be a contentious presidential debate focusing on foreign policy on Monday, anonymous “intelligence officials” have decided to update the Benghazi story. “No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack,” a Los Angeles Times headline reads. A Washington Post headline declares, “U.S.: Evidence doesn’t show planning in Libyan attack.”
           
          There is just one problem: These new accounts don’t add up.
           
          http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/spinning-benghazi_655121.html

          • Human898

            I’m not sure that you might have some trouble with comprehension.   The reason the presidential debates have been important has been why?   To woo the undecided?  If they are wooed to one side or the other, that means what?  Independents are called independents why?   Does that mean they don’t vote for or lean to one main party or the other?    If someone like much or some of Republican or Democratic ideology, but remains independent because they don’t like all of it, does that mean they can be labeled a Republican or Democrat by association or agreeing to some, not all of their ideology?   

            How is it then of a local militia group that may have no direct ties to a group like al Qaeda suddenly is labeled al Qaeda because they share some, not all al qaeda’s ideology?   If a foreigner likes some of what Americans do, but not all that Americans do, does that mean they are American?

            Methinks Mr. Romney and camp is betting that the American public is more gullible than they are, especially in a day and age where a lie may no longer be able to get half way around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.  

            I’m hoping Americans are more intelligent, more informed than Mr. Romney and his campaign give them credit for.   It would appear their use of partial truths and speculation is beginning to catch up with them, the more people investigate, not just what is behind Mr. Obama, but what’s behind Mr. Romney.  A common mistake of the myopic and egocentric is that while they are trying to deflect attention away from themselves and heap the focus on others, people in this day and age are checking in the backgrounds and the details of both, if for no other reason than all the candidates seem to be calling one another liars or contradicting one another with regard to “truth”.  

            The only good thing that will come of it hopefully is that people will begin to pay more attention to where the truth might actually be and not just looking at one side, but all sides, inclusive of their own side.    While the Romney campaign might not be dictated by fact checker, people will be looking for facts and not just about the Obama administration which is subject to far more scrutiny that Mr. Romney with regard to matters of public record.

    • notafeminista

      No President Bush didn’t blame those who died on 9/11. The Left blamed the US for its foreign policy both past and present.

      Like blaming a rape victim for wearing revealing clothing.

      • OnPointComments

        “But then, they always blame America first.  The American people know better.”  –Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick

        • notafeminista

          Amen brother.

      • hennorama

        Ummm … what? I “fail to” follow your train of thought.

        Are you suggesting I said something negative about Pres. Bush or blamed him for something? Or that I said he blamed someone other than those responsible for 9/11? Perhaps you’re objecting to my use of the words “failed to.”

        Fair enough. Let’s change it to something a bit more neutral, with no negative connotation. How about this:

        “9/11/2001 – Pres. Bush [did not] prevent the attacks even after the infamous “Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US” Presidential Daily Brief was given to him while he was on vacation on August 6, 2001. Nearly 3000 people died in these attacks.”

        This is true, right?

        What is happening now? Some are suggesting there were failures leading up to the Benghazi attacks, right? Failures to heed pleas to maintain security, intelligence failures, failures to anticipate an attack in light of previous attacks, failures to provide enough security personnel, failure to properly secure and fortify the compound, failure to hire the right company to oversee the Libyans hired as add’l security, etc., etc., etc. Failures ad infinitum.

        A bit similar to 9/11, no? Failures of intelligence, failures to heed warnings, failures to anticipate an attack in light of previous attacks, etc.

        And after the Benghazi attacks, accusations of failures to tell the truth, failures to keep a consistent story, failures to use the right words to describe the attack, failures to … fill in the blank.

        Fine. Let’s say all of this is true. What difference will it make? There will still be 4 brave Americans dead, and the people responsible will still be at large.

        My point is – let’s find the bastards and bring them to justice. Everything else is a distraction from that one true goal.

        Just like the original 9/11.

        • notafeminista

          “Bin Laden determined to attack in US” – and you would have the President, any President, do what precisely with that information?

          As opposed to apparently direct requests from a sitting ambassador and/or his office for more security in a specific and known location.

          Hum.

          • hennorama

            Again, I’m not blamimg Pres. Bush or suggesting he was responsible for 9/11 in any way. But one should be able to see some similarities in events leading up to 9/11 and some of what is known about Benghazi:

            1. Failures in intelligence
            2. Failures to heed warnings
            3. Failures to anticipate an attack in light of previous attacks

            Similar, right? Not the same, but similar. Comparable, not an exact equivalent.

          • notafeminista

            Thanks for your response.  I disagree with both intent and content.

        • notafeminista

          Gosh.  Let’s ask Cindy Sheehan, Maureen Dowd and their “moral imperative” if it makes a difference if one thinks his/her President is telling the truth.  Ms Sheehan camped out for weeks and weeks.  Her son was still dead.  Think anyone told her what difference will it make?

      • Human898

        Who blamed anyone, but those who perpetrated the attack?   The U.S. Embassy in Cairo, as well as Mr. Obama defended free speech (would you not?) while at the same time saying the video, although free speech, was not representative of the United States, (would you say differently?)  The idea was to diffuse anger and potential violence as a result of it as expressed by the protest (yes there was a protest) in Cairo.  President Bush and the State Department did the same thing in 2006 when a Danish cartoon spawned violent protests in Muslim nations.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/politics/04mideast.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&amp;

        • notafeminista

           
          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/

          No. The embassy did not defend free speech but instead “firmly rejected the actions of” the individual(s) who exercised free speech.

          As for diffusing…well.  The world was witness to subsequent events.

          And I never said Presidents Bush or Obama blamed the victims. The Left did.  How many of you right here on this board have the cojones to say you stood up and cheered (metaphorically speaking) when Ward Churchill and his roosting chickens came to the forefront? How many think it is necessary (ever thought so as a matter of course)to lie about one’s nationality when travelling abroad – not just occasionally but all the time?  Anyone participate (or wish they had) at the “Sorry Everybody” website after President Bush was re-elected?  (see Wikipedia). 

          However.  All comers are welcomed as exercising the freedom of speech – even disagreeable speech.

          • Human898

            What????   You can read the transcripts of the releases from the embassy.

            6:11 AM 9/11/12 (before the Benghazi attack)

            “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

            What does “ABUSE the universal right of free speech” mean to most people?

            Does the United States promote efforts to offend believers of all religions and hurt the religious feelings of Muslims?

  • Human898

    Where were all these people when all of the following occurred?  Why no complaints and condemnation of the president then?

    22 January 2002 – Calcutta, India – Harkat-ul-Jihad
    al-Islami gunmen attack Consulate – number of dead = 5

     

    14 June 2002 – Karachi, Pakistan – al-Qaeda truck bomb
    detonates outside Consulate – number of dead = 12

     

    28 February 2003 – Islamabad, Pakistan – Unknown gunmen
    attack Embassy – number of dead = 2

     

    30 June 2004 – Tashkent, Uzbekistan – Islamic Movement of
    Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks Embassy – number of dead = 2

     

    12 December 2004 – Jeddah, Saudi Arabia – al-Qaeda gunman
    raid diplomatic compound – number of dead = 9

     

    12 September 2006 – Demascuc, Syria – Gunmen raid US Embassy
    - number of dead = 4

     

    18 March 2008 – Sana’a, Yemen – Mortar attack against US
    Embassy – number of dead = 2

     

    9 July 2008 – Istanbul, Turkey -Armed attack against
    Consulate  – number of dead = 6

     

    17 September 2008 – Sana’a, Yemen (AGAIN) – Two car bombs
    outside US embassy in Yemeni capital – number of dead = 16

     

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities[/url]

    • Coastghost

      1Brett1 should enjoy this if you don’t, Human898: rather than post links here, I invite you in your copious spare time to Google (without quotes) the phrase “al Qaeda on the run”. THAT is the “implied” message that Obama has been spinning through the campaign . . . until the past couple of days: the phrase apparently now has utterly disappeared from Obama’s routine stump speeches. Inquiring minds want to know: what accounts for this fresh omission on the President’s part? He and his devotees (Vice-President Biden comes instantly to mind) have been reminding voters across the country that, indeed, Osama bin Laden is dead and gone, sleeps with the fishes and all that stuff: “al Qaeda’s on the run”, Obama himself has been telling us–until the last week of October, that is. Suddenly, his tune has changed. What accounts for this change? Surely Obama’s not now on the run?

      • Human898

        How about googling Binders of Women?   John McCain and 2002 Olympics    Bain Capital and Leveraged buyouts?   Was using “Al Qaeda on the run for 8 years before Obama?   If that were so, why was the head al Qaeda honcho still out there and what of Mr. Obama being the president under which OBL finally found?   I faulted Mr. Obama for what on the surface looked like an assassination mission, but after hearing the Seal that wrote a book about the mission speak, if he was telling the truth, it was clear that the mission was to bring him in to face the way we claim to do justice here in the U.S.   

        “Al Qaeda on the run” covers a huge range of interpretations and based on how some are trying to use the statement as some indication that al Qaeda is all, but gone, why wouldn’t he stop using it?  In addition, what proof did Mr. Romney have that it was even al Qaeda, consider there are how many groups considered to be terrorist groups, local or international?  

        How about still heavily armed rebels who had just disposed of Gadaffi, were still just as Muslim as any of Gadaffi’s supporters, who may have become just as incensed as protestors in Cairo over a film insulting Muslims and they decided to take it out on the closest Americans they could find?  How about investigating what happened before undercutting a president and suggesting that president was covering up something, when one is running against that president in a political election?  

        As Mr. Obama asked, is that what a responsible person would do, put their politics before their nation?  Why not, Mitt Romney seems to think it is okay to put jobs for foreigners ahead of jobs for Americans and thinks Americans, at least those that make under $250,000 a year are getting paid too much, while he (Mitt Romney) feels he’s not getting enough. 

        You can’t pull your guts out then ask, gee, why am I starving to death.

    • Coastghost

      In the list of nine attacks you culled from the longer list at Wikipedia, not one US Ambassador was killed. (If your intent here was to assemble an impressive body count, you might also have included the US embassy bombings in August 1998, which also appear on the Wikipedia list.) 

      • Human898

        So death does not matter unless it is an Ambassador?  What kind of cop out is that and of course there was death under Clinton and Reagan too or did you not notice all the Marines killed?   Once again, where were, ya’ll then when it came to the same political game played now?

  • hennorama

    Part 2 of 2

    Wait a sec …hmmm … isn’t this the same as saying

    “We have assessed the available facts and are unable to find al Qaeda members were directly involved in the attack.  We conclude that some people who are NOT al Qaeda were involved in the Benghazi attack, and they are connected to groups who are also NOT al Qaeda.  These groups (again, who are NOT al Qaeda) are either sympathetic to al Qaeda in some way, or are connected to al Qaeda in some way.  Again, we did NOT find that any al Qaeda members made the attack, or were directly involved in the attack, as of this date.”

    Saying someone is “connected to” or “sympathetic with” or “in contact with” or “working with” al Qaeda is the same as saying:

    People who are NOT al Qaeda have been connected to al QuedaPeople who are NOT al Qaeda have sympathies for al Qaeda People who are NOT al Qaeda have communicated with Al Queda People who are NOT al Qaeda are working with Al Queda

    At the U.N., Sec. Clinton said, in part:

    “… For some time, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups
    have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern Mali into
    neighboring countries. Now, with a larger safe haven and increased
    freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

    Again, assuming “they” means “al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb” (AQIM), Sec. Clinton does NOT say AQIM made the attacks, but rather “they [AQIM] are working with other violent extremists …”

    There’s more of this article that is similarly inconclusive, on page
    2.

    Mr. Joscelyn discusses an AP report from yesterday (Oct. 19, 2012),
    emphasizing the following from the report:

    “… and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact
    with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence
    official said.”

    “In contact with” can mean many things – text messaging, voice
    communication via radio or cellular phone, online chat, smoke signals, etc.  But mere contact does not mean AQIM had any prior knowledge of, was involved with the planning of, or had any control over the Benghazi attack.  In  fact, since this intelligence official did not say AQIM had prior knowledge, involvement in planning or control over the attack, it fairly strongly implies that they did NOT have any such involvement.  These were “intercepts” after all, which most likely means electronic communications.

    The quote does not say the content of the intercepts is known, and it could simply mean that this was “traffic analysis,” which draws patterns from information flow.  But the word “intercept,” combined with the fact that this was a US consulate and there was a CIA base/safe house nearby does imply some level of knowledge of the content.

    Not conclusive, of course.

    for more info on Signals Intelligence:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signals_intelligence

    I could go on, but it grows late.

    • notafeminista

      Never mind.

    • hennorama

      Last evening, in arguing that one needs to be very careful about various terms, such as “al Qaeda-affiliated parties,” and other terms used in conjunction with al Qaeda, I inserted this phrase after I had a little brainstorm:

      “Kind of a ‘Six Degrees of al Qaeda,’ if you will.”

      I had no idea that this had been used before.

      Today, I thought, “I’m going to demonstrate how tentative the use of “al Qaeda-affiliated parties” can be, by using those online “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” sites.”

      Before I did, I typed “kevin bacon al qaeda” into my search engine, and lo and behold, there were multiple similar uses of this, during the Bush administration.  I think it started with “The Onion,” almost ten years ago.

      Try it for yourself.

      Anyway, it cracked me up.  It just goes to show that there’s nothing new under the sun, and when you THINK you have an original thought, you may want to check first, to see if it truly is original.

      • notafeminista

        So.  Impromptu frenzy caused by offensive video….or calculated attack planned and carried out by those who have “grievances” with/against the US and its interests?

        Which do you think?

        • hennorama

          I believe that one can objectively view the entire situation as follows (I really tried to keep this as factual and objective as possible):

          1. The Cairo Embassy incident was principally due to protests over “the video.”

          2. The Benghazi attack’s causes were unclear from the outset. There were multiple media reports at the time that there were demonstrators at the site prior to the attack. Later reports contradicted these earlier reports. It’s possible that eyewitnesses may simply have mistaken the gathering of attackers as a protest rather than a preparation for an attack.

          3. Our intelligence services got it wrong at the start, as the Sept. 28, 2012 report from the ODNI stated: “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials….”

          Note that they didn’t say it was due to “the video” but only that it “began spontaneously following” the Cairo Embassy incident.

          They later changed their assessment, indicating the attack “… was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

          Note that they did not say “preplanned.”

          4. Public communications from various members of the Obama administration have been contradictory, and have changed over time. This may be as a result of the changing views of the intelligence community. It may also be due to political concerns, or other reasons altogether. It may also be due to “all of the above.”

          5. The mere fact that Amb. Stevens and others were killed and injured demonstrates that security in Benghazi was inadequate. Ongoing investigations have demonstrated that this was pointed out, prior to the attack, numerous times by a variety of individuals, and that those concerns were either ignored or denied.

          My conclusion, based on all we know to date, is that the Benghazi attack was a combination of a spontaneous reaction to earlier events in Cairo, mixed with anger over “the video” and anger over a variety of, as you say “grievances” against the US that already existed among some of the populace, mixed together with extremists/terrorists taking advantage of both the turmoil, and the weak security at the consulate. I don’t think it was preplanned per se, but rather an opportunistic attack, a sort of “target of opportunity.”

  • hennorama

    Part 1 of 2
     
    OnPointComments, in a post below, cites the following Weekly Standard article, “Spinning Benghazi 10:56 AM, Oct 20, 2012 • By THOMAS JOSCELYN”
     
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/spinning-benghazi_655121.html
     
    A critical reading of this article and the various links contained in
    it leads me to conclude that the facts of the Benghazi attack remain
    elusive and inconclusive, contrary to Mr. Joscelyn’s conclusion.  Mr.
    Joscelyn writes “Whether the L.A. Times’s sources want to admit it or not, ties between al Qaeda-affiliated parties and the attack are
    already established in the record.”
     
    Notably, he does NOT say al Qaeda was involved in the attack at all,
    but rather that there are “ties between ‘al Qaeda-affiliated parties’
    and the attack.”
     
    He doesn’t even say that “al Qaeda-affiliated parties” made the
    attack, but merely that there are “ties between” them and the attack.
     
    Not a very strong statement, is it?  Certainly not definitive.  Ties
    between “affliated parties” and the attack.  Pretty slim.
     
    There are other similar descriptive terms that each also say, in
    effect “These people are NOT al Qaeda, but there appears to be some sort of connection to al Qaeda, which we will not completely and clearly describe or define.”
     
    When quoting the Office of the DNI Sept. 28, 2012 statement, Mr.
    Joscelyn omits important portions.  The statement (which I encourage everyone to read) said, in part “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”
     
    Hmmm … could this be what led Amb. Rice to make all those statements on TV?  Maybe.  And the info was preliminary and evolving, to boot.  Well, damn, we should definitely accuse her of lying then, right?
     
    The statement continues, saying the DNI later revised their assessment “… to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”
     
    OK, so now they conclude it was an organized terrorist attack, by
    extremists.  Notably, NOT al Qaeda.
     
    The next sentence says “It remains unclear if any group or person
    exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.”
     
    Hmmm … so they’re unsure about who was in charge of the attack, if anyone.  And also they’re unsure if “extremist group leaders” (again, NOT al Qaeda) even had any of their guys there, or if they had guys there, whether they were being directed by said “extremist group leaders.”
     
    It goes on, saying “However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qa’ida.”
     
    Aha!  There’s al-Qa’ida.  Case closed, right?
     
     (continued in Part 2 below)

    • Gregg Smith

      I am reluctantly coming to the mindset that the issue is why security was denied. In the end, that is what cost lives. The big lie about the video is not an issue that seems to bother you but it does me. The fact that Al Qaeda is alive and well is something we need to understand.

      • StilllHere

        I thought it was over once we got Obama Biden, I mean, Osama Binladen.

      • hennorama

        Thanks for your response, and apologies as to the delayed reply. I’ve posted two other replies, to OnPointComments and notafeminista, which may also interest you.

        This issue of what you term “The big lie about the video” does in fact interest me, and it bothers me, but not in the same way it bothers you and many others.

        What bothers me is that I fail to see a “big lie about the video” at all. Here’s what I mean:

        The Office of the DNI Sept. 28, 2012 statement on Benghazi (which I encourage everyone to read) said, in part

        “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the out the video attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”

        source:http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/96-press-releases-2012/731-statement-by-the-odni-s-director-of-public-affairs-on-intelligence-related-to-the-terrorist-attack-on-the-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi

        Here are Amb. Susan Rice’s comments from 3 TV appearances on Sept. 16, 2012:

        On Face The Nation on CBS:

        SUSAN RICE: But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–

        BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm

        SUSAN RICE: –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

        BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

        SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

        BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

        SUSAN RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.

        source:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57513819/face-the-nation-transcripts-september-16-2012-libyan-pres-magariaf-amb-rice-and-sen-mccain/

        Also, from This Week on ABC:

        RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

        But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

        We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

        We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present.

        source:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-us-ambassador-united-nations-susan-rice/story?id=17240933

        And from Fox News Sunday:

        WALLACE: Let’s talk about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi this week that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

        The top Libyan official says that the attack on Tuesday was, quote, his words “preplanned”. Al Qaeda says the operation was revenge for our killing a top Al Qaeda leader.

        What do we know?

        RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.

        People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

        But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then.

        But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.

        source:http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/09/16/amb-susan-rice-rep-mike-rogers-discuss-violence-against-americans-middle-east#p//v/1843960658001

        In all three cases, Amb. Rice said, based on the best info available, the attack began as a spontaneous reaction to events in Cairo, involved extremists, and was not premeditated. This is exactly what the ODNI statement said was the initial assessment of the intelligence community.

        She also never says that the Benghazi attack was a result of anger over “the video.” Instead she says only that it came after the Cairo Embassy incident, “…as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video.”

        Therefore, I find it difficult to conclude that she lied.

        • Coastghost

          Compare with the assessment offered by James Rosen for the WSJ:

          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578062420490836106.html

          and note the info about Asst. Sec. of State Charlene Lamb’s Congressional testimony earlier this month: apparently, she was able to monitor the attack in “something akin to” real-time. If she was monitoring a virtually live feed from the consulate, surely she was not the only one: if she was the only one, why was our State Department not sharing its data with our intel services and the White House?

          • hennorama

            Mr. Rosen’s opinion piece is full of … well let’s just say, Mr. Rosen’s OPINIONS. His conflation of the events before, during, and after the Benghazi atack with the multiple and varied illegal acts of the Nixon administration during the wide expanse and long timeline of the Watergate affair is, at best, an incongruous comparison, as nothing illegal has been suggested to have occurred related to the Benghazi attack.

            Further, Mr. Rosen states, as if it were fact rather than merely his opinion, and without basis for what is his conclusion:

            “When all of the facts of these hours are compiled, we will have a truer picture of the tactical capabilities of al Qaeda and its affiliates in North Africa.”

            This statement implies that al Qaeda was part of the Benghazi attack, which has never been demonstrated. Only indirect “links” to al Qaeda have been shown.

            He further goes on to discuss Amb. Rice’s TV appearances on Sept. 16, 2012 thusly:

            “Three days before Mr. Olsen put a stop to the blame-YouTube storyline, U.N. Amb. Susan Rice, echoing Mr. Carney, had gone on five Sunday TV chat shows and maintained that the YouTube video has spurred the violence.”

            Amb. Rice did no such thing. Her televised statements said ONLY that the Benghazi attack occurred AFTER AND IN REACTION TO the Cairo incidents. Here are 3 quotes of what she said:

            On CBS: “…what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy—-sparked by this hateful video.”

            On ABC: “…this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video..”

            On Fox: “…what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.”

            “reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo” and “response to what had transpired in Cairo” and “spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo”

            A REACTION TO WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED EARLIER IN CAIRO, not “the YouTube video.”

            Amb. Rice’s remarks are in complete agreement with the CIA talking points that were prepared the same day and that have now been made public. They read in part, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

            Inspired by the protests, NOT “the video.”

            source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

            This is virtually identical to the ODNI statement dated Sept. 28, 2012 as well.

            (BTW – I have no doubt that Frank Lutz or others have “focus-grouped” the terms “YouTube video” and “obscure YouTube video” and found that these terms made people more likely to dismiss them as silly or unimportant. Mr. Romneys’ campaign, Fox News and others use these terms ad nauseum.

            This of course ignores the facts that “the video” was widely disseminated on the Web, was aired Egyptian TV on Sept. 9th, and was widely shared and reposted via social media and on smart phones prior to the Cairo Embassy incident.

            For those who think reaction to an online video or TV show or info shared via social media or smart phone couldn’t possibly be serious or result in demonstrations – remember what happened after Pres. Obama announced the death of Osama Bin Laden? This info was shared widely and rapidly, and spontaneous demonstrations happened all over the country.)

            Maybe if Mr. Rosen had said “U.N. Amb. Susan Rice, echoing Mr. Carney, had gone on five Sunday TV chat shows and maintained that the YouTube video [may have been an indirect cause of] the violence” I could agree with him.

            Deputy Asst. Sec. Lamb’s harrowing account of “.. our best information to date about what happened in Benghazi on September 11th…” which she said was “… an incomplete picture,” sheds absolutely no light on the cause(s) of the attack, or events leading up to it. Her words demonstrates the bravery of those involved, and the ferocity of the attack.

            One could also fairly conclude from this account that quite a large security force would likely have been required to prevent and/or defend against dozens of attackers armed with heavy weapons, diesel fuel, and mortars.

            Perhaps Mr. Rosen has never heard the term “fog of war.” He fails to demonstrate many of his conclusions. His opinion is simply that – an opinion.

            Again, I feel that many Americans are angry at the wrong people. Let’s find the [expletive deleted] people responsible for the deaths of 4 brave Americans, and prosecute them with extreme prejudice.

            The investigations are ongoing, and the facts will come out, at least those that can safely be made public.

            Speaking of which, are you outraged over House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government? He released reams of State Department communications Friday without redacting their names.

          • Coastghost

            Try to get one thing straight: a crowd of c. 125 people showing up at 9:40 pm local time equipped with diesel fuel containers being used as incendiary devices, and also equipped with grenades, mortars, and presumably automatic weapons, cannot credibly constitute simply a “spontaneous protest”. Also keep in mind that any PLANNED attack (you can safely dispense with the redundancy of “preplanned”), as it unfolds tactically, will unfold . . . spontaneously. That in itself does not make the attack purely spontaneous, however. You noted earlier “we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack”: oh yes we do. I doubt even in Benghazi, Libya, that people just casually stroll the streets adjacent to consulates carrying incendiary devices, grenades, mortars, and automatic weapons when their initial intent is simply to mount a civil protest.

          • hennorama

            Apologies in advance to those who are not fans of sarcasm (or of me, for that matter). The following contains significant amounts of sarcasm, with utterly serious remarks interspersed within.

            “Try to get one thing straight…”

            To me, this phrase conjures up an image of a semi-intoxicated old coot, in a bar, pointing his finger confrontationally at a “young whippersnapper” who has dared to challenge his thinking. Maybe you simply need a nap. I dunno.

            Thank you for your comedic stylings, and your for your calm lecture. I particularly appreciate and duly note your discussion of the word “preplanned,” and congratulate you on your well-reasoned remarks. I agree that this can be thought of as redundant. I also note that I was echoing both Fox News’ Chris Wallace, and Amb. Rice’s use of the word during a televised interview on Sept. 16th, which I have repeatedly quoted:

            [WALLACE: Let's talk about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi this week that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

            The top Libyan official says that the attack on Tuesday was, quote, his words "preplanned". Al Qaeda says the operation was revenge for our killing a top Al Qaeda leader.

            What do we know?

            RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack.]

            Thank you also for accurately quoting a portion of Amb. Rice’s Sept. 16th remarks, which were made 5 weeks ago, only 5 days after the Benghazi attack.

            YOU may now conclude, 5 weeks later, and with the ample benefits of hindsight and all the info that has been made public in the interim, that YOU “… see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack.” That’s your conclusion. Let me simply remind you that you (presumably) were neither present in Benghazi during the attack, nor privy to the entire scope of what Amb. Rice knew at the time of her Sept. 16th remarks.

            I drew my own conclusion, which I previously stated quite directly today:

            “My conclusion, based on all we know to date, is that the Benghazi attack was a combination of a spontaneous reaction to earlier events in Cairo, mixed with anger over “the video” and anger over a variety of, as you say “grievances” against the US that already existed among some of the populace, mixed together with extremists/terrorists taking advantage of both the turmoil, and the weak security at the consulate. I don’t think it was preplanned per se, but rather an opportunistic attack, a sort of “target of opportunity.”

            Finally, short of confessions from those responsible for the Benghazi attack and the resultant deaths of 4 Americans, no one actually definitively knows or can know the reasons behind the attack, or the motives of the attackers.

            All we have are groups of facts and suppositions, and conclusions drawn therefrom.

            Unless you are a mindreader in additon to being a comedian, of course.

        • Coastghost
          • hennorama

            Thanks for your response. I neglected to thank you previously for posting the very handy link to DAS Lamb’s testimony, so …thank you. It was very helpful.

            What you say is absolutely true. Eight armed and no doubt highly trained and motivated security personnel were on scene. According to DAS Lamb, they faced “Dozens of attackers [who] then launched a full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity.” And you yourself noted in another post that there may have been as many as 125 people arrayed against those 8 armed personnel.

            One might say, in comparison to the number and ferocity of the attackers, that there was weak security at the consulate. The outcome obviates the fact that it was inadequate against such a ferocious attack.

            Deputy Asst. Sec. Lamb’s remarks also contain no mention whatsoever of events leading up to the attack, or anything that occured outside the compound on Sept. 11, 2012 prior to 9:40 PM local time.

        • Gregg Smith

          Hennorama, I don’t understand you naiveté. It is not credible to say Susan Rice  was truthful. The best information said it was a coordinated terrorist attack on day one. There was NO intelligence that said it was the video. She was sent out to lie by the White House. That much is clear.

          There is a global jihad. An Islamic caliphate is the goal. They want us dead because we are infidels. There are nations run by thugs that support and fund our demise. They are lining up to die.
          Killing the perpetrators does nothing. Blaming the video appeases the rioting murderers. Calling terrorist attacks “workplace violence” hides reality. We must defeat them. The face of the entire Middle East must be changed.

          • hennorama

            Thank your for you comments, Gregg. I understand and respect your views, but (shocker!) I respectfully disagree with your conclusions re: Amb. Rice’s comments on Benghazi.

            I realize that if one has an anti-Obama bias (and I’m not saying you have one, BTW), one could “hear” Amb. Rice’s comments as “lies”. I disagree, based on how her words compare to what we know of the intelligence assessments available at the time.

            Please show how Amb. Rice was lying, and/or how she “blamed the video” if you can.

            Before you try, you may wish to read this WSJ article, which explains how fluid early intelligence assessments were, and how they were changing over that weekend, virtually as Amb. Rice was taping her Sunday talk show appearances:

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592704578065110900205432.html

            I honestly don’t know how to make this any clearer:

            CIA talking points:

            “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations,”

            source:http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/us/benghazi-spontaneous/index.html

            Amb. Rice’s words on This Week on ABC:

            “…But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

            We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.”

            Office of Director of National Intelligence statement, in part:

            “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”

            see:http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/96-press-releases-2012/731-statement-on-the-intelligence-related-to-the-terrorist-attack-on-the-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi,-libya

            Amb. Rice’s words, on CBS Face The Nation

            “SUSAN RICE: But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–

            BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm

            SUSAN RICE: –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.”

            Good luck with your quest.

            I must respectfully decline to respond to your remaining points, as they would involve a much lengthier discussion.

          • Gregg Smith

            They watched it in real tome. There’s a video. You seem to regard the video as the default story instead of a lie. If the best intelligence can’t say it was a terrorist attack (they actually did) that doesn’t mean it was the video. The video was irrelevant but you’re a true believer. Bless ya’.

    • OnPointComments

      Perhaps my views on Benghazi are simplistic, but having admitted this, here goes.
       
      I don’t care whether President Obama uttered the word “terror” in the Rose Garden speech.  I care that the evolving and continuing evidence indicates that what actually happened in Benghazi wasn’t the narrative that the President and his surrogates promulgated to the American and worldwide public, and that the administration knew their narrative was false.
       
      I don’t care whether the terrorists were part of al Qaeda.  I doubt that whether the terrorists had an affiliation provides any solace to the families of the four Americans who were killed, and it certainly doesn’t make them less dead.
       
      I don’t care that President Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing that said Osama Bin Laden and the radical Muslims hate us and want to attack us; I and most of the world knew this.  I care that our own ambassador and security specialists on the ground in Libya, people we could call by name, were begging, pleading for additional security and the Obama administration decided to decrease security and deny the requests for additional security.  I care that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb testified under oath that requests for more security in Benghazi, amid growing signs of terror threats, were rejected because the administration “made a policy decision to put Libya into a ‘normalized’ country status as quickly as possible;” I don’t think that the appearance of normalization should have taken priority over safety.  I care that we have a president who doesn’t consider the Presidential Daily Briefing to be important enough to attend in person, even after a terrorist attack.  I care that it is likely that the PDB reports, and certain that the reports from our personnel in Libya, discussed the deteriorating security situation, yet the Vice President says that “we” (later clarified to mean the president and vice president) didn’t know that additional security was needed or requested.
       
      I don’t think that hunting down the assasins and uncovering what happened in Benghazi are mutually exclusive; both can be done.  I want to know what happened, who knew, and when they knew.  I want to know whether we were lied to.
       
      I care that campaigning and fund raising appears to take priority over anything else.
       
      I care that the entire story gives the appearance of an administration in disarray that is willing to say and do anything to achieve a political goal.

      • hennorama

        Thank you for your response. I understand and respect your views and your passion.

        My comments:

        So … it’s not important to you whether or not Pres. Obama described the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

        It’s also not important to you whether or not the Benghazi attackers were part of al Qaeda.

        And it’s not important to you that prior to 9/11, Pres. Bush got a PDR stating OBL wanted to attack inside the US.

        I suspect many will disagree with you on all 3 of these points.

        And that’s OK.

        I agree with you that it’s important to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi AND to find those responsible and bring them to justice, and that these things can and should be done simultaneously and ASAP. This IS happening right now – we’re trying to find the bastards that killed our people, AND we are investigating the Benghazi incident.

        I also agree with you that it’s important to determine whether officials are lying and/or shading the facts due to political concerns and/or were simply mistaken and corrected themselves. These are all legitimate questions.

        Where I believe we differ is that it’s my feeling that the Benghazi incident, while very important, has been so wildly politicized that many have lost sight of what is, to me, most important – our people were killed, and we need to be angry at and find those responsible.

        I feel that the justifiable righteous anger most Americans feel over the deaths of 4 brave Americans has been largely misdirected toward the Obama administratation, solely for political purposes. Yes, we need to investigate and find out all the who what when where why how facts. Yes, we should hold anyone responsible for mistakes to account.

        But let’s be angry at the [multiple expletives deleted] people who killed our guys, not the people who are trying mightily to find out and explain what happened, and to prevent it from recurring.

        Again, in the same way we responded to our anger over the original 9/11 attacks.

        • OnPointComments

          Thank you for your response.  I suspect that we will have to disagree on some points.
           
          I don’t feel that the urgency and intensity with which the Obama administration is being questioned is misdirected; after all, the security of the consulate was the administration’s responsibility, and it clearly failed that responsibility with disastrous consequence.  The cause and persons responsible for the failure must be determined quickly and completely because there are many more consulates and embassies around the world that could be the victims of that same poor judgment.  We must prevent the situation from recurring, as you said, and I believe we must do so with great haste.

      • Human898

        Very interesting that no where in your statement do you question a prepared press release (prepared well in advance of its release) by a candidate running opposite the sitting president for that president’s job, condemning that president for not condeming the attack, which is false (the president had not spoken about the attack yet) and “to sympathize with those who waged the attacks” (Did Romney know who waged the attacks or was he assuming the attackers were the angry protestors in Cairo?)  

        When one is under attack, do they try to calm the crowd by speaking of condemnation for those who abuse the universal right of free speech that hurts the religious feelings of Muslims and hurt the religious beliefs of others or do you speak louder about a right to do so?

        By the tweeted messages, do you see any indication there was not conscious thought about freedom of speech?

         5:58-59 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets in three parts: “1) Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. 2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this. 3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/heres-a-timeline-of-the-confusing-statements-on-libya-and-egypt/262264/#

  • Coastghost

    In other words (additional to my reply just below to Human898): yes indeed, President Obama himself HAS BEEN politicizing his Administration’s prosecution of our war against al Qaeda, in exactly the “offensive” way he sternly rebuked Romney for in the second debate. (Let’s give credit before we stray: the successes wrought against al Qaeda’s leadership and networks have been won and executed by our military and intelligence agencies DURING the Obama Administration, with Obama serving as Commander-in-Chief . . . just as the effort was carried out under Bush’s Presidency, just as the effort was initiated in however flawed a fashion by Clinton [why he dropped pursuit of bin Laden in late 1998 to go after Milosevic I've never heard anyone say].) That the efforts have continued comes as no surprise, and Americans would have been startled to learn that efforts had been dropped altogether. But Obama has distinguished himself in seeking to capitalize politically that “bin Laden’s dead and al Qaeda’s on the run” practically ever since Osama was terminated with extreme prejudice. The successes have been those of our military and our intelligence services, yet Obama has been eager and ready to take credit politically and personally. ANY US Commander-in-Chief with a working sense of decorum would have praised the work of the military and the intelligence services and left it at that: not THIS Commander-in-Chief. His political boasts of the past eighteen months of the receding tide of jihadi ire against the US, in the aftermath of the 11 Sep Benghazi attack, now ring hollow. –and five weeks on, his Administration STILL has not gotten its story straight.  

  • Coastghost

    This thoughtful non-partisan paper (published prior to 11 Sep 2012, ‘twould seem) can be read as saying that Obama and his Administration have not practiced utter political realism in advertising ready assurances that “al Qaeda’s on the ropes, al Qaeda’s on the run”:

    http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2012/RAND_OP362.pdf

  • Ed75

    President Obama supports alll five of the non-negotiables of the Church: abortion, embyonic stem cell research, restriction of religious liberty, same sex marriage, and euthanasia (not yet but soon).

    From what I’ve seen, when a country takes a step in these directions, they soon afterward face a disaster.

    If we re-elect him, with these policies, our country will no doubt face a terrible calamity, I would think not like one that we’ve seen in many years.

    • JGC

      A calamity not like one we’ve seen in many years… What is the other calamity we have seen in previous years due to political policy based on health and reproduction?  StillHere and WFTC, what is the previous calamity the US has suffered ?

      • Ed75

        It appears that when a country takes a step in the abortion direction, they suffer a disaster. This happened in Mexico after they legalized some abortions, the drug trade exploded. In the Philippines they have come close to some legalization, and Manilla was half under water with storms.

        In the U.S., in 1973, the same week that Roe was passed, the U.S. signed it’s only surrender (that Saturday), to the Vietnamese. Former President Johnson died the day before, January 21st.

        In late 1992 the Supreme Court in Casey decided 5-4 not to overturn Roe, because ‘the society had become used to it’. Three months later the WTC was bombed for the first time.

        In the spring of 2001 the U.S. passed the 40 million level of abortions since 1973. 40 is a Biblical number, and later in the year, September, there was 9/11.

        It’s also a theological idea that if a society enters into serious sin, it will face disaster, and pretty quickly. We’ll see if President Obama is re-elected.

        • JGC

          Knights o’ Columbus! What a load of crap…

  • JONBOSTON

    Amazing that On Point would begin its program by focusing on  the “binder” absurdity rather than the Benghazi comments made by Obama. When Obama starts using such a lame attack like binders , it speaks  to his desperation more than Romney’s positions. It speaks even more about the mainstream media ( and Tom Ashbrook) that they would attach any significance to this theme without laughing. Talk about being in the bag for Obama. The woman first caller from Iowa had it exactly right–to listen to the criticism of Romney you would thing he was the incumbent and Obama the challenger. The fact that a President would continually lie to the American people about the events in Libya for nearly two weeks and blame the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi on an obscure American filmmaker whose film was seen by practically no one is of little importance to Tom Ashbrook, Jack Beatty, NPR, the mainstream media, and most notably the formerly respected New York Times.  And the filmmaker is still rotting in jail because the President of the US decided to lay the blame for all the events in the Mid East on him rather than accept any responsibility as president for the failure of his foreign policy. Regrettably for this nation that’s been the hallmark of Obama’s presidency, accepting no responsibility for anything, everyone else is to blame, and leading from behind.  Rather than defend American values to the world, Obama chose to indict a filmmaker. And where is the outrage from all the media, ACLU , and NPR’s Ari Shapiro, who persistently railed against Bush for housing terrorists in  Guantanamo, the Patriot act , rendition , etc (ie., all the programs retained by Obama)?  How anyone can think to vote for this incompetent, empty suit failure and poor excuse for a president is beyond me.

    • Coastghost

      –and having brought up “binders” and playing volleyball with it for a few minutes, NOT ONCE was mention made of “not optimal” Obama, not once (I did not hear it mentioned the first time, an Obama devotee would need to give me the timecode for its occurrence in the show in case I missed it). Shifting metaphors now: Obama’s enablers, the ones who try to make him more attractive and credible than he’s able to make himself, have cut him so much slack that an unwound spool of dental floss could become his campaign mascot.

      • Human898

        And you?  You’re working tirelessly at what?

    • Human898

      News for you.

      WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 (2006)— The Muslim world erupted in anger on Friday over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Europe while the Bush administration offered the protesters support, saying of the cartoons, “We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.”
      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/politics/04mideast.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&amp;

      ———————————-

      Where were you, Mr. Romney and all your spin then?

      Also, does the following sound familiar?

      ———————————-

      “Former Libyan rebels have launched an
      attack on the prime minister’s office in the capital Tripoli, leaving at least
      one guard dead, officials say.”

      “They said about 200 armed men, some carrying mortars, tried to storm the
      building but were repelled by security.”

      “Four others were wounded in the clashes, which lasted several hours.”

      “The attackers – ex-rebels who fought to topple Col Gaddafi last year – were
      demanding pay-outs promised under a reward scheme suspended last year.”

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17995427

      —————————————————

      Of course it sounds familiar, too familiar and to speak of it would shoot holes in yours and Mr. Romney’s speculation and attempts at spinning something into something it may not have been or was not, without having all the facts first.  

      Yes, it was a “planned attack” and one might guess there were a fair number in that group, like the one that attacked Ambassador Stevens, who, like al Qaeda, call those who insult Islam, “infidels” and might be tempted to “plan” do the same thing to Ambassador Stevens over an insulting video that they did to the Libyan Prime Minister’s office over a pay-out.    Being insulted by a film insulting Islam does not automatically make one a member of al Qaeda, either locally or internationally, just because al Qaeda is also, like most Muslims, insulted and angered by a film insulting their religion.   As with here in the U.S., some people take there anger to a higher extreme, like Americans that blow up other Americans in anger, (Oklahoma City, the Unibomber, Eric Rudolph, amongst others)  They were not al Qaeda simply because they acted in a manner similar to al Qaeda’s, those acts being “acts of terror”.

      Mr. Romney’s big talking point is asking what Mr. Obama’s plan for the next 4 years is, even as Mr. Romney cannot tell Americans how his fuzzy math works or can’t stop blaming Obama or what he would have done regarding the Benghazi incident, with acknowledgement that it is a lot easier to be an armchair quarterback after the fact.

  • Gregg Smith

    President Obama had to have a good showing at the last debate so the media pronounced him the winner. The actual event had little to do with the needed narrative. The next day I predicted Romney would continue to widen his lead in the polls. That has happened, so much for the narrative. It wasn’t hard to figure out.

    Tomorrow’s debate will be the final blow. Obama does not have the argument on his side, what can he say? 

    He’s desperate and that worries me. Dick Morris warned he may cut a deal with Iran and now I’m seeing news it’s in the works. It will be Obama’s Neville Chamberlain moment. Clearly  Ahmadinejad wants Obama reelected so he will be happy to comply.

    • JGC

      Oh brother, since when did you start hanging on every utterance from Dick Morris?  Morris is a shapeshifter who runs between political camps, and he is a toe-sucker besides.  Not that there is anything wrong with that…

      • Gregg Smith

        Funny you mention that, Morris will always be a toe sucker to me. He creeps me out. However, he’s right.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Yep. Morris is a hack who will say anything to not get off the media’s Rolodex. Anyone who calls him an expert is a media inbred who make the Hapsburgs look diverse by comparison.

  • Prodigal Kat

    “when a country takes a step in these directions, they soon afterward face a disaster.”
    Factual examples please?

  • Prodigal Kat

    To Ed75:
    “when a country takes a step in these directions, they soon afterward face a disaster.”
    Factual examples please?

    • Mike_Card

      Best to ignore him.  He only drops in on Fridays to deposit some dripping pile of dung–like this one.  He’ll be back with a slightly re-phrased version next Friday.  Just another bot who supports pedophilia, as long as it’s Catholic.

    • Ray in VT

      A while back he told me that the Roe v. Wade decision was responsible for the downfall of Nixon, America signing a treaty ending hostilities in Vietnam and a spike in crime throughout America in the 1970s.  He also said that Manila got flooded this year because they talked about legalizing abortion.

    • Ray in VT

      There is a reply a bit down the page that I did not see.  Check it out.  It offers some interesting insight into his world view.

  • OnPointComments

    Somewhat cynical, but understandably so:
     
    “As far as I am concerned, blood is dripping from Obama’s golf-gloved campaign hands.”
     http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/10/21/benghazi_obama_and_his_ilk_hung_chris_stevens_and_others_out_to_dry/page/full/

    • JGC

      What would Republican supporters like Jack Nicklaus have to say about your anti-golf diatribe?   Golfing is as American an enterprise as is  baseball or Nascar or professional football.  It is a source of employment for many people; it is a focus for positive open green space and environmental concerns in communities; it gives people a chance to take a break from reading On Point commentary so they can be out getting good exercise on the golf course.  Why are some Republicans so down on on the game of golf?  What would Eisenhower have to say about this?

      • notafeminista

        Classic deflection.  Textbook really.

        • JGC

          Thank you.

          • notafeminista

            You’re quite welcome.

  • Steve__T

    It seems that some are questioning this wars deaths in Benghaz and not for the right reasons, I say we should not be there this war must end.
    I am a Viet Nam Vet, I know the horrors of war and neither of thees candidates will end it. We have forgotten the sanctity of life we are supposed to embrace.

    ” I speak out against this war  because I am greatly disappointed with America, there can be no great disappointment where there is no great love”

    Martin Luther King

  • Coastghost

    To hear hennorama tell the tale, street vendors in Benghazi, Libya, maintain stalls along the streets ready to fill containers with diesel fuel should any passer-by take it into his head suddenly that he’d like one for a civil protest he’s planning to attend outside a local consulate. To hear hennorama tell the tale, other vendors maintain stalls selling grenades, just in case someone should want to liven up a civil protest outside a local consulate. To hear hennorama tell the tale, still other street vendors are ready to sell mortars and mortar rounds at a moment’s notice, just in case some participant in a civil protest decides to fire at a local consulate. And of course, to hear hennorama tell the tale, yet other street vendors in Benghazi while away their hours just waiting for some spontaneous civil protesters to show up who decide suddenly to launch an assault on a local consulate with automatic weaponry. Quite frankly: what fatuous nonsense.

    • hennorama

      Apologies in advance to those who are not fans of sarcasm (or of me, for that matter).  The following contains significant amounts of sarcasm, with utterly serious remarks interspersed within.

      Thank you for the (doubtless unintentional) comic relief.

      I quite literally laughed out loud.  I think there’s just something about the phrase “To hear hennorama tell the tale…” that just tickles my funny bone.  Please let me know if you do a standup routine too, as I’d be delighted to attend.

      On the serious side, I’d be interested in discovering how you come to your droll conclusions.  I realize I’ve been quite prolific and no doubt overly verbose in my discussion of the attacks in Benghazi, but I don’t recall typing anything remotely resembling what you term “the tale.”

      Here are a few recent excerpts of my posts (apologies to the board for the repetition):

      Replying to YOU, earlier today, I typed, in part:

      “One could also fairly conclude from this account that quite a large security force would likely have been required to prevent and/or defend against dozens of attackers armed with heavy weapons, diesel fuel, and mortars.”
      Please note the absence of any mention of or resemblance to anything you posted as “the tale.”  Other than me describing “…dozens of attackers ARMED WITH heavy weapons, diesel fuel, and mortars”, that is.  Pretty much the exact opposite of your “tale.”

      Replying to notafeminista, also today, in part:

      “My conclusion, based on all we know to date, is that the Benghazi attack was a combination of a spontaneous reaction to earlier events in Cairo, mixed with anger over “the video” and anger over a variety of, as you say “grievances” against the US that already existed among some of the populace, mixed together with extremists/terrorists taking advantage of both the turmoil, and the weak security at the consulate. I don’t think it was preplanned per se, but rather an opportunistic attack, a sort of “target of opportunity.”

      Note the use of the words “combination” and “mixed togther with” and “opportunistic.”  A mixture of different elements or an almagam, if you will.

      Virtually everything else I posted are direct quotes from others, most notably the CIA and the ODNI, all of which I’ve provided sources for.  Please note that I personally never said any of the things quoted, but simply set them out for all to see.  Without edits, and in context, I may add.

      I did indeed draw my own conclusion, as directly stated above.

      Thank you again for your levity, as I needed a good laugh today after learning of yet another incident of multiple firearms murder today, in Wisconsin.

      • notafeminista

        ….and they just so happened to pick an American target on 9/11?  Man I hope those guys bought lottery tickets.

        • Human898

          And the video people in Cairo were protesting about?   Where did that come from?  America?  

          Why would anyone pick an American target in and about the same time as protests about an Amercan video insulting Islam were taking place?   A video??   Or maybe using the video as a cover?   In either case the video is involved, so is the date 9/11.  Do/did you or Mr. Romney have some definitive proof as to who was involved what their motivation was?  If not, how were/are you criticizing those who also did not, but were and continue to try to find out?

          Could the events described in the following link have had any connection with the video and initial hunches about the protests in Cairo that Mr. Romney mistakenly referred to thinking he was referring to messages released after the Benghazi attack?

    • hennorama

      Yeesh…. I’m so embarrassed – I just realized Coastghost is Clint Eastwood.

      The clues were all right there in front of me, too:

      Lives on the Monterey peninsula in California (Coast).

      Getting up there at age 82 and a bit out of the spotlight (ghost). 

      Terse, macho, confrontational Dirty Harry persona comes through in posts (“Try to get one thing straight …).  A bit like “Go ahead. Make my day” and even “Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?”

      Military service and movies leading to fluent discussion and easy use of military terms (“…any PLANNED attack …, as it unfolds tactically…”)

      My apologies, Mr. Eastwood.  I generally enjoy and respect your work.  Except for the whole empty chair thing at the RNC.  A bit over the top, no?  Great way to keep your name out there, though.

      Regardless, my apologies for comparing you to half-drunk old codger in another of my posts.

      • notafeminista

        You really do need for the cause to be the video don’t you?  Unfortunately the evidence doesn’t support the video being the cause, so you will settle for a “mix of” catalysts – one of which still being the video. I’ll bet you consider yourself a moderate.

        Which leads to the obvious question.  How did the  first black, intellectually superior, oratorically gifted leader of the free world get it so wrong.  Harvard educated!  Constitutional professor!  Uniter!

        If only he were white and over 60.

        • hennorama

          Thank you for your response.

          My personal conclusion is based on weighing all the available evidence, even though it is actually impossible to definitively know the motivations of the attackers, short of having their confessions.
          I believe one can objectively conclude from the evidence that there were a variety of groups and individuals involved in the attack in Benghazi – militia elements, anti-US extremists/militants/terrorists/al Qaeda “affiliates” (pick the term you prefer), young men angry over “the video” and mimicking the Cairo incident, or simply angry over their crappy lives and looking for somewhere to take out their anger, even looters taking advantage of the situation.

          I have no “need” for any particular thing to be the cause or causes of the attack in Benghazi. I simply weighed the evidence without jumping to hasty conclusions, and concluded that a variety of motives existed, and the organized attackers opportunisticly took advantage of both the turmoil and relatively weak security.

          I will decline to answer your question, as I assume it to be rhetorical.

          However, I will say “evidence strongly suggests” that you exhibit an anti-Obama bias in your remarks, both today and in the past, and that your repeated mentioning of Pres. Obama’s race is troubling.

          • notafeminista

            Noted.

  • Coastghost

    Asst. Sec. of State Charlene Lamb testified before Chairman Issa’s House Committee on 10 Oct: “Dozens of attackers then launched a full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity.” At the same hearing Eric Nordstrom (whose tour as RSO in Libya ended in July) characterized the attack on the Benghazi consulate in similar terms, “unprecedented” or “unparalleled” to anything he’d seen during his time in Libya. Anyone would have to have three pairs of hands for the eyes, ears, and nostrils not to notice that this was a planned attack and not simply a spontaneous eruption of violence. (Yes, it could well have been opportunistic, either in regard to events in Cairo or in terms of the calendar date or the arrival of Amb. Stevens in Benghazi, but to take advantage of any such opportunity with the weapons that were used would require PLANNING.) 

    • Human898

      Another “planned attack” not spoken of by the Romney camp.

      “Former Libyan rebels have launched an
      attack on the prime minister’s office in the capital Tripoli, leaving at least
      one guard dead, officials say.”

      “They said about 200 armed men, some carrying mortars, tried to storm the
      building but were repelled by security.”

      “Four others were wounded in the clashes, which lasted several hours.”

      “The attackers – ex-rebels who fought to topple Col Gaddafi last year – were
      demanding pay-outs promised
      under a reward scheme suspended last year.”

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17995427

      Sound familiar?   Of course it does and these people weren’t even incensed over a video their fellow Muslims were protesting in Cairo, but to talk about this would present weaknesses to the talking point that the attack on Benghazi was long planned by a definitive al qaeda terrorist cell sent from some other nation specifically to perpetrate this attack.  First, when has al Qaeda not taken credit for its attacks, especially as a means to rally others to the same?  Second, the above attack demonstrates a what could easily be termed a spontaneous violent attack by locals incense and angered over something and taking their anger out in violent attacks.

      There is also this:

      “WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 (2006) — The Muslim world erupted in anger on Friday over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Europe while the Bush administration offered the protesters support, saying of the cartoons, “We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/politics/04mideast.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&amp;

      The above addresses the talking point meme that the Romney camp has attempted with regard to the notion that the Obama administration was out making some sort of “apology” to Muslims, not about the offensive material in the video while at the same time defending the free speech principles of our nation, but about some spun notion that the Obama adminstration was apologizing to those who attacked Americans.   It pretty much tears that spin to shreds by pointing to the exact same thing done by a Republican President done for the same reasons the Obama adminsitration did it, to point out the truism that the video was offense to the senses of any sensible person and insulting to Muslims, but as Mr. Bush and the Bush State department pointed (Koffi Annan too) out regarding what was then protests over a Danish cartoon were offensive to Muslims, so censorship is too, to free people.

      It’s pretty clear what the Obama administration and the Bush adminstration were doing and why, unless someone thinks otherwise and they think either the video was not insulting to Muslims or free speech is not a good idea, but the Romney camp spun and is perhaps still trying to spin the idea that agreeing that the video was offensive to Muslims and publically stating so, somehow equates with apologizing to terrorist attackers.

      This not atypical of the Romney camp and it is incumbent upon Americans to not let it pass without scrutiny and without articulating and showing its dishonest intent.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 25, 2014
Pallbearers carry a coffin out of a military transport plane during a ceremony to mark the return of the first bodies, of passengers and crew killed in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, from Ukraine at Eindhoven military air base, Eindhoven, Netherlands, Wednesday, July 23, 2014. (AP)

Secretary of State Kerry to Israel. Obamacare back in the courts. Mourning as remains of Malaysia Flight 17 victims come home. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Jul 25, 2014
Guest Renee McLeod of Somerville, MA's Petsi pies shows off her wares. (Robin Lubbock / WBUR)

There is nothing more American than a piece of pie. We taste and talk pies.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 24, 2014
Orchid (Galileo55/Flickr)

We’ll look at the new science of what plants feel, smell, see – and remember.

 
Jul 24, 2014
Youths seen playing basketball through bars on a window at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Ethan Allen School in Wales, Wis. (AP file)

The cold hard facts about juvenile prisons. And the case for shutting them all down. Plus: former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is with us.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: July 25, 2014
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

Why the key to web victory is often taking a break and looking around, and more pie for your viewing (not eating) pleasure.

More »
Comment
 
The Art Of The American Pie: Recipes
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

In the odd chance that our pie hour this week made you hungry — how could it not, right? — we asked our piemaking guests for some of their favorite pie recipes. Enjoy!

More »
Comment
 
Hillary Clinton: ‘The [Russian] Reset Worked’
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took time out of her global book tour to talk to us about Russia, the press and the global crises shaking the administration she left two years ago.

More »
Comment