By the way this issue of semantics is irrelevant. To any voter that views this as an important factor in their voting decision AND who is still not decided will AT BEST be unsure as to the intent of the words being used. What some of those will see if one guy accusing the other guy of not saying something when the words were indeed used. In other words, there is no win for the Governor here - only a potential loss.

 

A fair debate is how strongly the administration condemned the act as terrorism. That's not what the Governor said when he tried to nail him down to certain words. He missed a golden opportunity.

 

If they're at that point the president is toast on the subject as what they will remember, no matter what was said and when it was said, is the two weeks this administration lied to the american public.

I watched for about 15 minutes and neither answered either question that was asked. That's when I turned it off.

 

It does get frustrating. And while sometimes they do skirt around issues, I truly believe they have an answer to a lot of the questions but believe they will come off an "un-politician" like if they answer directly or still leave two minutes on the clock. They get caught up with hearing themselves and their own voice.

 

One lady asked how they will help women even the pay for the same job as their male counterparts. Obama spent 4 minutes talking about his grandmother (you know, the typical white woman) and how she climbed to a managerial position with a bank despite not having an advanced degree then hitting a glass ceiling. OK. Then Romney fumbled around to talking about an entire stack of applicants for a job was all men and that he did not like that and the ultimate solution is to have a good economy. Riveting and insightful there, Governor.

You will see, as we move forward that there were indeed riots related to the video that were happening AND a planned attack.

 

As for asking for more support/security - it is my understanding now that the security was asked for in Tripoli, not Benghazi

If they're at that point the president is toast on the subject as what they will remember, no matter what was said and when it was said, is the two weeks this administration lied to the american public.

 

I'm not convinced of that as I'm probably more cynical towards the level of comprehension of the average voter.

 

I think that "two weeks" message got lost in the "did you use the word terror or not" banter.

Clyde, I appreciate the points that you make. I cannot recall you saying who you support in this election, and for the life of me I cannot discern this from your comments. Maybe you don't want to state where your support lies, and that most certainly is understandable.

 

 

When I was pre-voting age I remember my dad always saying that there is a reason there is a curtain at the voting booth. That stuck with me. I have never told my wife who I am voting for and I have no clue who she is voting for. Doesn't matter to me. It's a personal decision. Is that the right approach? No clue. It is my approach though.

You will see, as we move forward that there were indeed riots related to the video that were happening AND a planned attack.

 

As for asking for more support/security - it is my understanding now that the security was asked for in Tripoli, not Benghazi

 

The security team moves with the ambassador.

It does get frustrating. And while sometimes they do skirt around issues, I truly believe they have an answer to a lot of the questions but believe they will come off an "un-politician" like if they answer directly or still leave two minutes on the clock. They get caught up with hearing themselves and their own voice.

 

One lady asked how they will help women even the pay for the same job as their male counterparts. Obama spent 4 minutes talking about his grandmother (you know, the typical white woman) and how she climbed to a managerial position with a bank despite not having an advanced degree then hitting a glass ceiling. OK. Then Romney fumbled around to talking about an entire stack of applicants for a job was all men and that he did not like that and the ultimate solution is to have a good economy. Riveting and insightful there, Governor.

 

In defense of both Romney and Obama that was a stupid question.

It does get frustrating. And while sometimes they do skirt around issues, I truly believe they have an answer to a lot of the questions but believe they will come off an "un-politician" like if they answer directly or still leave two minutes on the clock. They get caught up with hearing themselves and their own voice.

 

One lady asked how they will help women even the pay for the same job as their male counterparts. Obama spent 4 minutes talking about his grandmother (you know, the typical white woman) and how she climbed to a managerial position with a bank despite not having an advanced degree then hitting a glass ceiling. OK. Then Romney fumbled around to talking about an entire stack of applicants for a job was all men and that he did not like that and the ultimate solution is to have a good economy. Riveting and insightful there, Governor.

 

That was exactly what I was talking about. That is when I started watching.

Okay, here's where the polls are losing me...

 

The CBS poll had Obama winning last night's debate by 7 points. I would call it a draw myself, but I think one can make the argument that the President narrowly won. No big deal there. But then CBS also has a poll where people think Romney won on economic issues by an overwhelming margin. I didn't see the numbers, but heard some of the talking heads mentioning it, and it was something like 65% felt Romney did better/would do better on economic issues.

 

So my question is this: The economy is obviously the #1 issue, and I'm not sure there is a close #2. If this is the case, and voters feel like Romney is better equipped to deal with this by such a large margin, then why is the race a statistical tie?

 

I've long held the view that America does not want Barack Obama for a second term. But America is less satisfied with what Republicans have had to offer as an alternative. But if Romney is viewed as being this much stronger than Obama on the most important issue...well, it just doesn't add up. :confused:

You will see, as we move forward that there were indeed riots related to the video that were happening AND a planned attack.

 

As for asking for more support/security - it is my understanding now that the security was asked for in Tripoli, not Benghazi

 

No riots in Benghazi. That is sworn testimony from State Dept. officials.

 

Additional security was requested for Benghazi. That is sworn testimony from State Dept. officials.

 

It's all in the transcript of the Congressional hearing. I watched it from start to finish. Very troubling information was revealed. Obama has a lot of explaining to do. Especially after his statement last night during the debate.

 

While I disagree that he called it a terror attack the next day, let's go with his assertion. Why then, a week later did he go to the UN and give a speech blaming a video if he knew it was a terror attack? Why did you send Susan Rice to 5 tv shows to say it was due to a video 5 days later?

 

You say you take offense to saying you mislead America Mr. President? I take offense to your arrogance and you seemingly think the American public is stupid. You either mislead the American people or it is gross incompetence. Neither is presidential.

As an aside...does anyone else get beyond frustrated when candidates mention something along the lines of, "That's a great question. Just a couple of days ago, I ran into a small business owner from (insert swing state here) & they begged me to help them, fix this, etc. etc. etc." Romney did it last night when he referenced someone from Pennsylvania, but it happens all the time & in every debate. Drives me crazy.

As an aside...does anyone else get beyond frustrated when candidates mention something along the lines of, "That's a great question. Just a couple of days ago, I ran into a small business owner from (insert swing state here) & they begged me to help them, fix this, etc. etc. etc." Romney did it last night when he referenced someone from Pennsylvania, but it happens all the time & in every debate. Drives me crazy.

 

That's called stalling for time while you figure out new ways not to answer a tough question. I think there's a class on it for politicians.

That's called stalling for time while you figure out new ways not to answer a tough question. I think there's a class on it for politicians.

 

Definitely could be stalling, but I've also viewed it as a canned answer pandering to whatever swing state is mentioned.

I haven't read any transcripts but I'm pretty sure I heard the President say something along the lines of, gas was under $2 because we were on the verge of an economic collapse.

 

Can someone explain that to me?

Definitely could be stalling, but I've also viewed it as a canned answer pandering to whatever swing state is mentioned.

 

Most every answer is pandering to some degree. There was a question asked last night about gas prices and somehow Obama turned it into education. Romney turned every question into an indictment of Obama's economic record. Like I said earlier I'm growing tired of the debates.