[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[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]
You are assuming that Romney was going to end where he began. But, my point is he was not allowed to finish his point because the moderator was busy trying to help Obama.
Unless you have a crystal ball and know that he was going to end there you have to give Romney the benefit of the doubt as the moderator cut him off.
Would he have run for the touchdown? We’ll never know the referee tripped him.[/quote]
I think it’s funny that some people are saying “you know you lost a debate when you blame the referee.”
Ask the NFL replacement refs if referees can fuck up a game or not.
[/quote]
Was that an inappropriate metaphor? Perhaps it was. But I do know when a moderator in a debate is a left wing feminist and follows lock step behind your opponent that eventually…in that debate…she’s going to help him out. And she did just that!