Like everything else President Obama does the second debate is a case of too
little too late. The fatal damage was done during the first presidential debate
when President Obama failed to take his opponent seriously.
As a military person, when a person hedges as the President did and Hillary
Clinton even admitting there was a problem. I could not trust this person,
either one in protecting and providing protection for anyone. The recording and
transcript of that didn't say that Libya was a terrorist attack. He is
very selective in his words and didn't want to discuss that. Crowley did a
lot of the talking for him and hedged herself. She is a liberal CNN
communicator.I am glad people in Colorado enjoy the Deseret News and
the articles that are written. We enlighten or attempt to enlighten others that
live in the high mountains and may suffer the affects of hypoxia and other
problems. The President had such a great debate there in the open air and with
his performance record of the past 4 years.We are so fortunate to
have him lead us down the path for 4 years and the media that strings him along
as Miss Crowley did last night.
Re:VSTHave you read the text of Obama's speech to the UN or are
you just regurgitating what you hear/read from others?This whole
Libya issue is naked political gamesmanship--started by Romney. First, the
embassy in Cairo was attacked purportedly in response to the video. There were
protests in other countries and the attack on the Libyan consulate (not
embassy). Obama spoke broadly about these attacks. Time and again Obama and
others (Ambassador Rice, for instance) cautioned there was uncertainty and an
investigation about what transpired. So if Republicans want to say
Obama was speaking broadly, not specifically, in the Rose Garden when he talked
about "acts of terror" they should then apply the same measuring stick
to other comments. Repuvlicans, ever on the hunt for a conspiracy
when there is a Democratic president.
VST,"I'm sure this is not over – we likely will hear
more about it at the next debate this coming Monday."==========It might not be over. I can see how the statement might
have been a hypothetical but it can also be read as a definitive. But what stood
out in last night's exchange was that Romeny was ready to pounce and Obama
was ready for him. Romney was taken back by the turn. Next time they meet for
the debate on foreign policy, I expect the Governor to be prepped.
UtahBruin,How I admire your stamina. Putting up a stiff upperlipped
defense for last night is really hard work but you're no shirker.
@ LeftiesDo you blame Bush for the last four years or are you
alright with what Bush did? Because last night you did a heck of a job defending
Bush. Do you approve of Bush's tax cuts which I think I have heard you
deamonize over and over again, yet you extended them and you say you want to
extend them again. Now if you don't like them but extend them, don't
they now become your tax cuts? You said you called it an act of terror in the
Rose Garden the day after the Benghazi attacks. If you did, then why did you
parade off into being the celebrity on all the radio and talk shows and say you
didn't know? Why did you say in the UN Meetings otherwise? Why did you let
Rice report otherwise on several different media outlets? And did you plan for
Clinton to take the fall for you? Will you ever take responsibility for the last
four years, which is it? Obama doesn't even know what side he is on. This
guy is just rhetoric after rhetoric, that waffles back and forth on who to
Ah, come'on. We gotta lighten up on these Republicans. They
aren't used to being challenged or having to listen to a different side of
the story. When you watch Fox, listen to conservative radio and read DN all
day, life is so simple, easy and comfortable. Notice the difference
between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are self critical. They were at
least able to acknowledge when their "guy" had a bad night.
(Many)Republicans are just in denial that their guy didn't win the debate.
Even Charles Krauthammer agreed Obama prevailed.
KJB:Obama said "acts of terror" but never linked it to
Benghazi. If he had, why would he have spent the next two weeks saying the
cause of the murder of our ambassador was spontaneous demonstrations caused by
the anit-Muslim video? UN Ambassador Rice went did the Sunday TV show circuit
and gave the administration's line - "spontaneous demonstrations"
not "acts of terror" - five different times in one day! So why would
she do that if the administration had made the correct conclusion on day 1?The administration blew it, as Secretary Clinton admitted when she fell
on her sword for the President yesterday.
atl34 Is that why for days him and all his minions including him at the United
Nations were blaming it on the video. Him again on the view with we don't
have all the info.Contradiction? Me thinks you might be the idiot and I am sure
a Obama Drone You know unmanned. Check it out Mr. Rocket Scientist
I'm a Romney supporter but last night I learned how badly Obama wants to
keep his golf vacations via the White House.Desperation!He refuses to talk about his first 4 yrs. He mostly talked about what he
doesn't like about Romney.I think Obama wants us to just
"trust him", but we already did that and it didn't work.I wish someone would clue me in though on WHY the Republican party agrees to
have the moderators be Obama cheerleaders?
"He [Obama} and his lifeline the moderator both lied about the Rose Garden
Comment."==========We just can't trust those
liberal news media types, can we? Gotta keep our eye on them every minute cuz we
never know what kind of sneaky no good they'll be up to next.
@mohokot"He made a general reference to terrorism but he did not say
that Bengazi was an act of terror. "Only a total and complete
idiot, or partisan political hack for the Republican party would claim that a
statement about not letting acts of terror stand in our way in a speech about
attacks on our embassies/consulates... is not a clearly implied statement that
the attack was an act of terror.
Obama won. It was nice to see.
Do you find it curious that the Moderator/lifeline had the Rose Garden
Transcript ready the second Obama called for it.
@ old man Obama got in three more minutes that Romney. Get your facts
straight.If arrogance and lying gets points Obama clearly won. He
and his lifeline the moderator both lied about the Rose Garden Comment. As a
matter of fact she has walked that back.He made a general reference to terrorism
but he did not say that Bengazi was an act of terror. His whole group including
him for days blamed the video. Come on drones get real. Again what
we saw was Marxism vs Capitalism.
@Truthseeker“When you give conservatives bad news in your
polls, they want to kill you,” he said. “When you give liberals bad
news in your polls, they want to kill themselves.”Hah, so
true. @JWB"I am glad the debate had the Libya question
posed so that will be part of the foreign policy or lack of foreign policy from
this President."Me too, because Obama knocked it out of the park
on that one.
Inconclusive = Obama won every single post-debate poll.
Out here where LDS are few, folks in a bishopric often use the terms pastor or
associate pastor to quickly explain their role. It is easily understandable
shorthand and the definition includes those who do so not as a full time or paid
vocation.Bishop is a term with a much different meaning in many
denominations. It would have muddied rather than clarified.
JWB,"I am glad the debate had the Libya question posed so that
will be part of the foreign policy or lack of foreign policy from this
President."==========I don't know what you have
to be glad about. Romney was licking his chops when Obama seemed to have
blundered into a trap, then suddenly felt the steel jaws close on his own foot
upon learning that Obama had indeed referred to the attack as a terrorist attack
the day after. Romney thought Libya was his ace to play. It turned into a
misfire and he was visibly rattled when he saw he had not done his homework.
KJB1: "And it wasn't Mitt Romney."The
problem Romney has, is... Obama's the better liar. Plus, Romney had to
debate not only Obama but the moderator, Candy Crawley as well. Is she running
I noticed Obama was campaigning like he was newly running for office. I
didn't hear him say "we did this and it worked" or "we are
working on this and need to continue". Instead I heard "we have to
..........." like it's a new concept. Never did I hear him say what
his presidency has done in the past 4 years -- other than created 5 million jobs
-- really? How many were lost? Had to be quite a few with record high
unemployment. How many of those jobs were government , not private sector jobs?
He touted Obamacare and how good it would be for economy. I've talked to
several friends who are in private sector employment who have been told there
would be cutbacks to their work hours because they couldn't afford to pay
for Obamacare. They weren't told they would lose their jobs, just have
hours cut back -- so not only less pay, but now having to find their own
insurance and pay out of pocket for it. My daughter would be considered poverty
level and she's sick about having no insurance because her work won't
offer it as she's parttime student.
OBama did much better....except for the prevaricating. But, if he gives that up
he'll have little to brag about.
"I was talking with an old friend who is with one of the nonpartisan polling
outfits (and who also happens to be a very good and fair-minded pollster). We
were discussing the large shifts in some of the polls on the presidential
election and the feedback he receives whenever he puts out new numbers that make
one side or the other unhappy. He offered an observation so priceless that it
needs to be widely shared.“When you give conservatives bad
news in your polls, they want to kill you,” he said. “When you give
liberals bad news in your polls, they want to kill themselves.”I am protecting his identity because I don’t want him to get any
additional phone calls. I would only add: Buck up, liberals!"(E.J. Dionne Jr., journalist and columnist for the Washinton Post)
FT - I already see a candidate I don't like or respect in the form of
Obama. I don't think either of them "looked good", but I
didn't really hear one question answered by Obama. Both skirted around
issues, but not answering questions -- last one did it for me when the question
was about how they were percieved and how that is different from who they really
are. Romney did answer it, but Obama only went on the attack against Romney --
didn't say a thing about himself. And I can see why Romney used the word
"pastor". If he had said bishop and stake president, that would start
the Mormon thing all over again. We're not voting for a religion -- I
could care less. I'm surprised Clinton's responsibility wasn't
jumped on. If she is that inept at her job, why hasn't she resigned --
case of misdirected blame before the election? Obama said he was Commander in
Chief -- he knew about the request for extra security -- give me a break.
I've said in the past few elections vote for the lesser of two evils -- in
my book the choice is clear.
I am glad the debate had the Libya question posed so that will be part of the
foreign policy or lack of foreign policy from this President.You
have to have diplomacy at the highest side and this President has Mrs. Clinton
be his messenger of bad tidings. He likes to be glitzy and his time killing Bin
Laden was not his forte since it was a military operation and he doesn't
really like the military and now we see the State Department in a hostile
country either.Being a President for him is riding around in his 747
everyday, almost, and taking nice vacations that cost our economy $200M a day to
provide support people, equipment, aircraft and a carrier fleet. He knows how
to spend money and attacks those that make it for our economy. He supports the
fight of those that have not made money to those that have made money. He
played that card several times last night. He can't show that
performance is what he should be judged on. He avoided that topic more than
once, also. He was tactical and strategic in bringing up the 47%
when Mitt could not rebut it.
The President supposedly had 2800 pages in his debate brief book. That is a lot
of information and Mitt Romney would have had a similar type of briefing
process. That is a lot of information to spew out. If they got 70 percent,
hopefully, they could have passed their test.However, even though
they couldn't take their notes with them, I will agree that the professor,
Candy Crowley helped crib for the President, a time or two. She didn't
give that type of advantage to Mitt Romney and sort of told him that he was
wrong a time or two, also.This President doesn't know reality
and has a hard time answering a question directly, whether it was asked by one
of the supposedly undecideds or from Mitt Romney. You could see
some evidence that the President despises his opponent and his principles. The
President even showed some of Joe Biden's smiles last night but the cameras
didn't use the split viewing as with the VP debate so it was harder to
see.Honesty is the best policy and the President doesn't have
any real policies except shooting from the hip without advisors close.
Re:xertGood points.Republicans are reality challenged
and it isn't good for their party or the country.Romney kept
saying he knows how to get the economy moving but didn't say how. He talks
about the $5 trillion in tax cuts, but doesn't say how he's going to
make them revenue neutral. He's going to give himself a $674,000 tax cut
when he repeals the AMT, and is determined to keep the special carried interest
loophole that enabled him to amass his great fortune. Even if one
believes in the Laffer curve, at some point, taxes can become too low and not
generate enough revenue. But maybe that's the Republican goal.
It is total liberal media bias. Obama lied through his teeth (and the liberal
moderator joined in) about Libya - oh, and just about every other topic brought
up last night. And the liberal pundits are saying that he won the debate! What a
joke! Just because he was more aggressive doesn't mean he won! I don't
care whether he can debate lies! I care that his record is beyond horrible. He
may be running for reelection, but he certainly can't run from his record!
It was infuriating to watch both candidates -- and most frequently Romney --
completely ignore the time limits without being shut down by the moderator.Several times, when the moderator tried to do her job, Romney tried to
bulldoze her.Maybe next time, the timers should be shown on screen
for all to see with a loud air horn to blast when time is up.
@ xert1. Disagree2. Disagree3. Disagree4.
Disagree5. Disagree6. Disagree7, Disagree8. Second term?
If a president does a bad job (Google Jimmy Carter), one term is plenty.
Oh, it was conclusive all right. My conclusion was that the President showed up
and took back this race. This is one of the biggest differences between
Democrats and Republicans. When they debated two weeks ago and (in my opinion)
Mr. Romney won the debate, Democrats were the first to admit it and demand that
their President show up and fight in the second debate. He did so. He floored
Mr. Romney on a couple of occasions (Rose Garden and 47%). He made Mr. Romney
look petulant and like a spoiled rich kid who is used to getting his own way.
Still--Republicans, from the safety of their bubbles are trying to claim that he
won the debate. Laughable, a bit sad and a major reason our nation will still be
in a lot of trouble even after President Obamas second term begins.
One clueless and one with ideas and experience. Glglad mitt. Was there. O has to
86&90uteto mant people bishop is a lifetime, celebate compensated job
This article was written by a DesNews staff writer, right? And the headline
said what? "Inconclusive?" What an odd choice of words. But then this
is the DesNews. The DesNews managing editor much be doing his best to maintain
some semblance of Romney momentum regardless of the story. This is simple bias,
but considering that the DesNews serves a niche market of conservatives in Utah,
it will be seen as an accurate portrayal of events.The major
national newspapers appear to have an entirely different take on the debate last
night. Although many do not like the need to declare a winner and a loser in a
debate (whatever that means), the second presidential debate was not
"inconclusive" to most independent viewers.Fox News ran a
piece with Frank Luntz interviewing a focus group of older, white folk claiming
to be "independent" where all but two people were very much in favor of
the Republican candidate at the end. This is informative since Luntz is a
Republican strategist and his audience's "independence" is
questionable since this was a Fox News event staged for the post-game show.
Having any other result would have been adverse to the show.
Pastor, minister or lay minister would all be acceptable terms. Nothing there
to contend 86&90Ute...
I'm wondering, is the only way to keep within the agree rules of the debate
to put each in a separate room with a microphone and camera, and when time is
up, cut the feed and move on? Regarding the debate, this one will
not move the needle like the last one. Not sure if it will or won't stall
the bump Romney has had after the last debate, but in and of itself this debate
won't move undecided voters.
@86&90UTEA Stake President, Bishop or other presiding leader in
the Mormon church is considered a "pastor". People outside of the church
are familiar with the term pastor, that's probably why Romney referred to
his Stake Presidency as such.
Ok, what the heck? Romney said he was a pastor for ten years. He was never a
pastor, with the accompanying training. He was a bishop. He may have even been
an awesome bishop. But use the word bishop. Why would he not???
The only clear choice we have to save our country is to elect Mitt Romney
President of the United States. Just because BHO was more aggressive tonight
does not mean there was much substance. I thought Mitt held his own. I
didn't like the moderator. She clearly favored the president. She actually
backed one of his missteps. Unvelievable! When do we get some conservative
moderators? I thought Mitt Romney was the clear winner of this
debate because he has a plan to get this country out of this mess. It only gets
messier with Obama.
Oh, please. Romney could have shown up in the wrong city and the DN still would
have found a way to try to make him look good. When Republicans have to resort
to nitpicking the definition of "acts of terror", it's clear who
the winner was tonight. And it wasn't Mitt Romney.
It was fortunate for President Obama to have his campaign advisor Candy Crowley
by his side.
Mitt Romney may be the next President of the U.S. but tonight I think a lot of
people saw a man they won't like or respect. He was disrectful and
dishonest to name a few. And yes, the same could be said of our President.
Hopefully, our Utah school districts give us the same opportunity to pull our
children out of the class rooms when President Romne speaks to students as they
offered when President Obama did. I certainly don't think he represents
the strong values and morals that many of us are trying to instill in our