Pres Debate: 10/16/2012

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201
  1. The laffer curve does not work.
    Just for fun I will use your think tank the Brookings Institute

“Bush’s Tax Plan Slashes Growth”. The Brookings Institution. http://www.
brookings.edu/views/op-ed/gale/20030509.htm.

Dynamic’ Scoring Finally Ends Debate On Taxes, Revenue. By Alan Murray. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: April 1, 2003. pg. A.4

What every american wants by Milton Friedman "deficits are produced entirely by a shortage of tax receipts (revenue)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=20030116&id=GagfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UNYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4808,2227778

`Dynamic’ Scoring Finally Ends Debate On Taxes, Revenue
Wall Street Journal
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/882137/posts

202

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).

Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.

Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?

What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]

Why can’t you see that when Romney was about to throw the Libya knock out punch the referee, Candy Crowley tripped him from behind.

It’s called B I A S…As I sad before the debate Crowley was in the tank for Obama and she proceeded to prove me correct. And even so Romney held his own against both of them.[/quote]

Crowley showed bias and proved you prediction correct, that is uncontested.

But–this was Mitt Romney’s fault. He had the opportunity to mount a broad and damning assault on Barack Obama’s response to the tragedy in Libya, and instead he allowed it–no, he ENCOURAGED it–to be framed in the narrowest possible sense. He turned a scathing critique into a yes-or-no question to which he did not know the answer. Candy Crowley answered the question and she answered it correctly. It was bias on her part, yes, but it was also unbelievable incompetence on Romney’s part.

Mitt Romney had all the ammunition in the world and yet in the heat of the moment he went all in on a matter of wording.[/quote]

But you and I don’t know where Romney would have taken his attack because Candy Crowley took Obama’s side and essentially turned it around.

He may have done exactly what you claim he should have.

Just like to fighters in a cage, all a referee has to do is stop the fight at a crucial moment then restart them and it is a game changer!

Get it?[/quote]

It was Romney himself who challenged the President on a trivial technicality rather than on the larger issue. It was Romney who bet his argument on whether or not the words “act of terror” were uttered in the Rose Garden that day. It was Romney who brought this upon himself.

And again, Crowley was a terrible moderator, she interjected where she shouldn’t have, and the questions selected were very obviously tougher on Romney than on Obama. This was not an even debate. But Romney didn’t do himself any good on Libya, and that’s abundantly clear.

203

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

I threw in a comment on the last debate thread and I’ll throw one in for this one.

As I said last time, I’m an independent who voted for Obama, but will be voting for Romney this fall. There is a LOT of talk in this thread about the Libya incident. I can tell you as an independent, if I was still actually trying to decide who I was voting for, this would be down on the list a bit on topics that would sway my decision. Not to say it isn’t important, it is. But I would imagine most independents are going to put issues on the home front ahead of foreign policy, especially right now.

I think the Libya incident in the debate will weigh less in swing voters/independents minds. And looking at it that way, I would say Romney looks pretty good for the issues most of these people care about the most, as you listed above.

I certainly feel Romney has been effective in driving home the fact that Obama’s policies haven’t and won’t work.

[/quote]

Well said, and the Obama supporters who feel that this debate will give their candidate a bump will be very disappointed.

No bump for Obama and here’s why:

1- The debate was close, some give the edge to Obama, fair enough. But, as you said, on the issues that matter the most, the ones that effect the pocketbook Romney hit it out of the park. How many times did he remind the viewers that Obama has had four years and failed? I think five or six times. nd he also told the voters what he’d do to turn things around.

2- Many, not all, will see Candy Crowley as the biased moderator that she was. This takes away a bit from Obama’s performance as he had help.

3- The third debate is on Monday the 22nd, only 6 days from the previous debate. As you recall after the first debate the voters had two weeks to let the Romney victory percolate. Those who chose Romney over Obama after that first debate are not going to swing over to Obama because the two had a close debate. Most importantly the new polls will barely be out and they will be going at it again.

4-Historically the middle debate means less than either the first which is the most important and the third which is the final impression for those who want to decide from debate performances.

[/quote]

I personally don’t think obama did that well. He was more ‘alive’ in the debate, but he still couldn’t stand up to the facts. The facts of the matter are this:

  • the deficit is larger than ever.
  • Health care and insurance are more expensive than ever.
  • Food costs are soaring.
  • The dollar is in the toilet.
  • Unemployment is inexcusably high.
  • He failed on Libya big time.
  • He’s made it more difficult to open a business in the U.S.

Basically, his policies are a big fat fail.

204

[quote]pat wrote:
I personally don’t think obama did that well. He was more ‘alive’ in the debate, but he still couldn’t stand up to the facts. The facts of the matter are this:

  • the deficit is larger than ever.
  • Health care and insurance are more expensive than ever.
  • Food costs are soaring.
  • The dollar is in the toilet.
  • Unemployment is inexcusably high.
  • He failed on Libya big time.
  • He’s made it more difficult to open a business in the U.S.

Basically, his policies are a big fat fail.[/quote]

So quick to say that he supports small business one hundred percent, and yet it is harder than practically ever before to be a small business owner in this country.

205

[quote]smh23 wrote:

It was Romney himself who challenged the President on a trivial technicality rather than on the larger issue. It was Romney who bet his argument on whether or not the words “act of terror” were uttered in the Rose Garden that day. It was Romney who brought this upon himself.[/quote]

Disagree. Romney was shocked at the words that came out of Obama’s mouth, and rightly so. So was everyone else. Of course Romney had to follow up on the statement, because it was in such incredible contradiction to what was actually said over the course of several weeks.

Romney missed an opportunity to talk about Libya better, and more broadly, in the beginning - but he didn’t mess up the challenge to Obama’s representation, which Romney appeared to see as an opportunity to do a better job on the question. Crowley, however, rescued the President by facilitating the misrepresentation, and cut Romney off from following through.

That said, I agree with the guy above - the Libya question will take a backseat to larger economic issues. But Romney had a clear chance to raise Obama’s handling of Libya (after whiffing on it the first time), and the moderator contaminated the process.

206

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).

Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.

Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?

What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]

Why can’t you see that when Romney was about to throw the Libya knock out punch the referee, Candy Crowley tripped him from behind.

It’s called B I A S…As I sad before the debate Crowley was in the tank for Obama and she proceeded to prove me correct. And even so Romney held his own against both of them.[/quote]

Crowley showed bias and proved you prediction correct, that is uncontested.

But–this was Mitt Romney’s fault. He had the opportunity to mount a broad and damning assault on Barack Obama’s response to the tragedy in Libya, and instead he allowed it–no, he ENCOURAGED it–to be framed in the narrowest possible sense. He turned a scathing critique into a yes-or-no question to which he did not know the answer. Candy Crowley answered the question and she answered it correctly. It was bias on her part, yes, but it was also unbelievable incompetence on Romney’s part.

Mitt Romney had all the ammunition in the world and yet in the heat of the moment he went all in on a matter of wording.[/quote]

But you and I don’t know where Romney would have taken his attack because Candy Crowley took Obama’s side and essentially turned it around.

He may have done exactly what you claim he should have.

Just like to fighters in a cage, all a referee has to do is stop the fight at a crucial moment then restart them and it is a game changer!

Get it?[/quote]

It was Romney himself who challenged the President on a trivial technicality rather than on the larger issue. It was Romney who bet his argument on whether or not the words “act of terror” were uttered in the Rose Garden that day. It was Romney who brought this upon himself.

And again, Crowley was a terrible moderator, she interjected where she shouldn’t have, and the questions selected were very obviously tougher on Romney than on Obama. This was not an even debate. But Romney didn’t do himself any good on Libya, and that’s abundantly clear.[/quote]

I think he did fine on Libya, the fat cow did not let him finish and cut him off, because obama never said that Libya was an act of terror, but rather the U.S. would not tolerate acts of terror. He always held that it was mob anger over a movie no one saw.
She did terrible as a moderator and let he bias be clearly seen. She should not be correcting the facts of either candidate. That’s not her job. She over stepped her bounds and should be fired.
People want to hear the candidates not the fat cow, she’s not running for anything.

207

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:

The study also reports increased growth and employment, which has to be considered as well. [/quote]

This is the point of the rate reduction in the first place. Any increase in the velocity of money should translate into more taxable transactions.

The report you linked did have a table that showed modest drops in revenue (3-6% I believe) over the 2 years presented.

Certainly interested in the stuff from the 90’s you spoke about if you find it before I do.

(haven’t read past this post in the thread as of this responce.)

208
  1. Education subsidies, human capital and economic growth

“They showed that economies with less equitable income distribution raise differential fertility, decelerate human capital accumulation, and lower economic growth; they thereby highlighted the
importance of income redistribution through tax and educational subsidy”

Becker GS (1967) Human Capital and the Personal Distribution of Income.
Woytinski Lecture No. 1. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Becker GS, Tomes N (1976) Child Endowments and the Quantity and Quality of
Children. Journal of Political Economy 84(4):S143?S162.

Becker GS, Tomes N (1979) An Equilibrium Theory of the Distribution of Income and
Intergenerational Mobility. Journal of Political Economy 87(6): 1153?1189.

de la Croix D, Doepke M (2003) Inequality and Growth: Why Differential Fertility
Matters. American Economic Review 93(4):1091?1113.

Fender J, Wang P (2003) Educational Policy in a Credit Constrained Economy with
Skill Heterogeneity. International Economic Review 44(3):939?964.

Galor O, Zang H (1997) Fertility, Income Distribution, and Economic Growth: Theory
and Cross-country Evidence. Japan and the World Economy 9(2):197?229.

Glomm G, Ravikumar B (1992) Public vs. Private Investment in Human Capital:
Endogenous Growth and Income Inequality. Journal of Political Economy
100(4):818?834.

Han S, Mulligan CB (2001) Human Capital, Heterogeneity and Estimated Degrees of
Intergenerational Mobility. Economic Journal 111(470):207?43.

Hanushek, EA (1992) The Trade-off between Child Quantity and Quality. Journal of
Political Economy 100(1):84?117.

Hanushek EA, Leung CKY, Yilmaz K (2003) Redistribution through Education and
Other Transfer Mechanisms. Journal of Monetary Economics 50(8):1719?1750.
H
nushek EA, Leung CKY, Yilmaz K (2004) Borrowing Constraints, College Aid, and
Intergenerational Mobility. NBER Working Paper 10711.

Iyigun MF (1999) Public Education and Intergenerational Economic Mobility.
27

International Economic Review 40(3):697?710.
Kremer M, Chen D (2002) Income-distribution Dynamics with Endogenous Fertility.

Journal of Economic Growth 7(3):227?58.
Maoz YD, Moav O (1999) Intergenerational Mobility and the Process of Development.
The Economic Journal 109(458):677?697.

209

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I personally don’t think obama did that well. He was more ‘alive’ in the debate, but he still couldn’t stand up to the facts. The facts of the matter are this:

  • the deficit is larger than ever.
  • Health care and insurance are more expensive than ever.
  • Food costs are soaring.
  • The dollar is in the toilet.
  • Unemployment is inexcusably high.
  • He failed on Libya big time.
  • He’s made it more difficult to open a business in the U.S.

Basically, his policies are a big fat fail.[/quote]

So quick to say that he supports small business one hundred percent, and yet it is harder than practically ever before to be a small business owner in this country.[/quote]

I talked to a small business owner the other day that is suffering from policies and regulations of this administration to the point that he is ready to close shop. the regulations and health care has made it difficult for him to operate and make a profit.
I have certainly seen enough of obama.

He keeps referring to the Clinton economy. Now while Clinton, to his credit, did manage to reach across the aisle and balance the budget, what people have forgotten is that the boon was based on the technology bubble that popped in 2000. He was riding the wave of an artificially high economic bubble.

Further, as far as government revenue is concerned, they are going to get way more money is the economy is work than if they tax a few rich people more. A good economy results in many more taxing opportunities since money is taxed virtually every time it changes hands, the more hand changing you have, the more money the government gets.

It’s basic economics really, like the difference between Ferrari and Honda. Ferrari makes way more per car, but Honda sells exponentially more cars and hence is bigger and richer than Ferrari will ever be.

210

1280×800 116 KB

[quote]ZEB wrote:

As for the general public you are overestimating their intelligence. Most do not recognize bias in the media. Nor will they recognize a softball thrown to Obama and a hardball at Romney. Especially if it’s done with the finesse that only the MSLM can bring to such events. Trust me when I say that the Obama campaign is thrilled with the choice of Candy Crowley as the moderator. And if you watch closely tonight you will see the subtle slights that she gives to Romney. The unfinished sentences, the interruptions etc. And you will also see the gifts given to Obama. How she may bail him out or stop a pounding rigth in its tracks with gems like “we have to get another question in here…bla bla bla…”

Hey if I’m wrong you can remind me of it on Wednesday.

I agree Obama will not be a laughing fool like his running mate. He’ll be poised, upbeat, smiling when appropriate and seemingly very able. We all know what we get with Romney he’s very stable and has been in every debate that I’ve ever seen him in and I watched about a dozen of the republican primary debates.

[/quote]

Bumped for Nostradamian accuracy.

Pic definitely related.

211

I am only saying there is merit in education subsidies…Not all programs and policies work but education subsidies on a whole are not meritless

212

[quote]smh23 wrote:

The problem here for Romney is that the number of people who will wait and re-formulate opinions based on the fact-checking pales in comparison to the number who made the snap judgement during the debate. No amount of backpedaling by Crowley will undo the damage she did to Romney in the heat of the moment, in my opinion.[/quote]

This. Most of the debate viewers didn’t see and will never see Crowley post-debate statement. Romney had limited time, and needed to stick to the actual issue instead of getting tunnel vision on a particular phrase. This is what I believe cost him a debate win, despite Obama’s more vigorous outing.

If one considers the magnitude and nature of the flub, one is actually surprised this wasn’t a devastating Romney loss, reflected in the immediately following post-debate polls. But it wasn’t. He gave away the biggest error, yet still makes a solid showing in those polls. Certainly not the lopsided polls after the first debate.

My most interesting statement? Romney lost the debate, but won the election. Has anyone looked at the CNN poll breakdown? Romney wins on all issues but one, foreign policy. And he loses that by a mere 2% Yet Obama takes the overall in this poll? Why? I think the flub. They gave it to Obama on style and for simply avoiding a cringe-worthy moment, unlike Romney. But on the issues? Romney got 'em. They may have given Obama the debate win, but I’m not sure he won their vote.

213

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
4. The CNN poll had Obama winning 46-39%. But in the breakdown of topics, Romeny fared considerably better on subjects like best on economy (18 point lead), health care, and taxes, the most important topics. Also, Obama’s line that “Romney-isn’t-specific-enough” isn’t working - in this debate, Obama was seen as having fewer specifics.

It’s interesting, and we may at the point where “winning” the debate is something independent and separate from where voters’ heads are in terms of preferring a candidate - i.e., you can “win” a debate, but that doesn’t change any minds.[/quote]

Beat me to it.

214

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

It was Romney himself who challenged the President on a trivial technicality rather than on the larger issue. It was Romney who bet his argument on whether or not the words “act of terror” were uttered in the Rose Garden that day. It was Romney who brought this upon himself.[/quote]

Disagree. Romney was shocked at the words that came out of Obama’s mouth, and rightly so. So was everyone else. Of course Romney had to follow up on the statement, because it was in such incredible contradiction to what was actually said over the course of several weeks.

Romney missed an opportunity to talk about Libya better, and more broadly, in the beginning - but he didn’t mess up the challenge to Obama’s representation, which Romney appeared to see as an opportunity to do a better job on the question. Crowley, however, rescued the President by facilitating the misrepresentation, and cut Romney off from following through.

That said, I agree with the guy above - the Libya question will take a backseat to larger economic issues. But Romney had a clear chance to raise Obama’s handling of Libya (after whiffing on it the first time), and the moderator contaminated the process.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with the sentiment you’re expressing.

But I believe that allowing (encouraging) the debate to hinge on the specific wording of a transcript was a monumental mistake, and it was made by Romney. Crowley went to bat for the Dems–and I am as aware and as uneasy about that fact as anyone on this board–but Romney tossed her a hanging slider.

To make a slightly different point: just before Crowley’s interjection, Romney was pushing Obama hard on the “act of terror” wording. Obama had sat down and, in response to Romney’s inquiries, responded with something like “please proceed, Governor.” It’s being characterized as a moment in which Obama decided to sit back and wait for Romney to walk into his trap, but I believe that Obama was actually as unsure as Romney about the specifics of the transcript. That it, I don’t think either of them knew whether or not the words in question had been used.

Which brings us to one of the most important rules about debating: don’t talk about something that is verifiable unless you know for sure that you will be vindicated upon verification.

215

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

As for the general public you are overestimating their intelligence. Most do not recognize bias in the media. Nor will they recognize a softball thrown to Obama and a hardball at Romney. Especially if it’s done with the finesse that only the MSLM can bring to such events. Trust me when I say that the Obama campaign is thrilled with the choice of Candy Crowley as the moderator. And if you watch closely tonight you will see the subtle slights that she gives to Romney. The unfinished sentences, the interruptions etc. And you will also see the gifts given to Obama. How she may bail him out or stop a pounding rigth in its tracks with gems like “we have to get another question in here…bla bla bla…”

Hey if I’m wrong you can remind me of it on Wednesday.

I agree Obama will not be a laughing fool like his running mate. He’ll be poised, upbeat, smiling when appropriate and seemingly very able. We all know what we get with Romney he’s very stable and has been in every debate that I’ve ever seen him in and I watched about a dozen of the republican primary debates.

[/quote]

Bumped for Nostradamian accuracy.

Pic definitely related.[/quote]

Seconded. Zeb called this like a psychic.

216

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I don’t disagree with the sentiment you’re expressing.

But I believe that allowing (encouraging) the debate to hinge on the specific wording of a transcript was a monumental mistake, and it was made by Romney. Crowley went to bat for the Dems–and I am as aware and as uneasy about that fact as anyone on this board–but Romney tossed her a hanging slider.

To make a slightly different point: just before Crowley’s interjection, Romney was pushing Obama hard on the “act of terror” wording. Obama had sat down and, in response to Romney’s inquiries, responded with something like “please proceed, Governor.” It’s being characterized as a moment in which Obama decided to sit back and wait for Romney to walk into his trap, but I believe that Obama was actually as unsure as Romney about the specifics of the transcript. That it, I don’t think either of them knew whether or not the words in question had been used.

Which brings us to one of the most important rules about debating: don’t talk about something that is verifiable unless you know for sure that you will be vindicated upon verification.[/quote]

I think we agree on much of that, but one difference, in my opinion - you say “but I believe that Obama was actually as unsure as Romney about the specifics of the transcript”. I disagree. I think Obama was waiting to play that card and was prepared for it. When Romney honed in on Obama’s statement, and there was some cross-talk, Obama said (I believe, we can check against the video), “go check the transcript”.

If that’s right, Obama was prepared to deploy this line, and it’s one that not he nor his handlers have ever used. I think Obama was fairly certain of the specifics of the transcript prior to making his statement.

217

[quote]smh23 wrote:

It was Romney himself who challenged the President on a trivial technicality rather than on the larger issue. It was Romney who bet his argument on whether or not the words “act of terror” were uttered in the Rose Garden that day. It was Romney who brought this upon himself.
[/quote]

Agreed. Obama knew exactly what the spirit of Romney’s attack was. He knew where it was going. An organized assault, planned and carried out by a terror group. And, not a spontaneous mob, enraged over a you-tube video. During that whole exchange Obama KNEW this. He saw it coming. What he did was allow Romney to bog himself down in a phrase that NOBODY,-- and I mean NOBODY–who has followed the aftermath, believes referred to an assault by an organized terror group.

218

[quote]ZEB wrote:

4-Historically the middle debate means less than either the first which is the most important and the third which is the final impression for those who want to decide from debate performances.

.[/quote]

Romney will get his ass handed to him next week if he doesn’t get his foreign policy in order.

Obama is going to say “going back to the Bush policies that got us in 2 unfunded wars” about 286 times in 90 mins. Many, many people are going to agree.

I’m saying, the third debate will be a shit show for Mitt.

His only saving grace is American’s only seem to disapprove killing foreign people when a republican is in office, so they aren’t focused on that right now.

EDIT: fixed who said what

219

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I don’t disagree with the sentiment you’re expressing.

But I believe that allowing (encouraging) the debate to hinge on the specific wording of a transcript was a monumental mistake, and it was made by Romney. Crowley went to bat for the Dems–and I am as aware and as uneasy about that fact as anyone on this board–but Romney tossed her a hanging slider.

To make a slightly different point: just before Crowley’s interjection, Romney was pushing Obama hard on the “act of terror” wording. Obama had sat down and, in response to Romney’s inquiries, responded with something like “please proceed, Governor.” It’s being characterized as a moment in which Obama decided to sit back and wait for Romney to walk into his trap, but I believe that Obama was actually as unsure as Romney about the specifics of the transcript. That it, I don’t think either of them knew whether or not the words in question had been used.

Which brings us to one of the most important rules about debating: don’t talk about something that is verifiable unless you know for sure that you will be vindicated upon verification.[/quote]

I think we agree on much of that, but one difference, in my opinion - you say “but I believe that Obama was actually as unsure as Romney about the specifics of the transcript”. I disagree. I think Obama was waiting to play that card and was prepared for it. When Romney honed in on Obama’s statement, and there was some cross-talk, Obama said (I believe, we can check against the video), “go check the transcript”.

If that’s right, Obama was prepared to deploy this line, and it’s one that not he nor his handlers have ever used. I think Obama was fairly certain of the specifics of the transcript prior to making his statement.[/quote]

Agree. Obama worded the speech, and paused in a way that will bring “context” into play. He never directly refered to libya as a terror attack, and seemed to be talking about 9/11/01 when he said the words CC lied for him on.

People that don’t think Obama knows what and how he is saying everything he says are fools.

220

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I don’t disagree with the sentiment you’re expressing.

But I believe that allowing (encouraging) the debate to hinge on the specific wording of a transcript was a monumental mistake, and it was made by Romney. Crowley went to bat for the Dems–and I am as aware and as uneasy about that fact as anyone on this board–but Romney tossed her a hanging slider.

To make a slightly different point: just before Crowley’s interjection, Romney was pushing Obama hard on the “act of terror” wording. Obama had sat down and, in response to Romney’s inquiries, responded with something like “please proceed, Governor.” It’s being characterized as a moment in which Obama decided to sit back and wait for Romney to walk into his trap, but I believe that Obama was actually as unsure as Romney about the specifics of the transcript. That it, I don’t think either of them knew whether or not the words in question had been used.

Which brings us to one of the most important rules about debating: don’t talk about something that is verifiable unless you know for sure that you will be vindicated upon verification.[/quote]

I think we agree on much of that, but one difference, in my opinion - you say “but I believe that Obama was actually as unsure as Romney about the specifics of the transcript”. I disagree. I think Obama was waiting to play that card and was prepared for it. When Romney honed in on Obama’s statement, and there was some cross-talk, Obama said (I believe, we can check against the video), “go check the transcript”.

If that’s right, Obama was prepared to deploy this line, and it’s one that not he nor his handlers have ever used. I think Obama was fairly certain of the specifics of the transcript prior to making his statement.[/quote]

At the time of the debate, I thought I was reading uncertainty in the President, but upon reflection I agree with you. I think it makes perfect sense that Obama’s people would have gone through the transcripts and looked for anything that could have helped shield him form the criticism. consider me swayed.

In that event, Obama played Libya extremely well.

But, the final debate is ahead and he seems to have played his only hand a bit early. I’d expect Romney to memorize word-for-word a robust criticism which renders the “act of terror” point null.