Up for Debate: Two reports, two Romneys

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:15am

In an interview with Fox News, Mitt Romney calls Libya attack a "tragic failure." Also, CNN reports Romney says in a Fox News interview that he was "completely wrong" on 47 percent comment. Discuss.

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

98 Comments on this post:

By: Ask01 on 10/5/12 at 11:10

One positive sign I have noticed recently is the proliferation of help wanted signs around town.

Some businesses where I placed online applications have even contacted me.

I am happily employed now, however, and will stay with the company which gave me a job.

The upside, to me, is businesses which have reveled in an abundance of applicants are going to find themselves with the tables turned and they at the mercy of the job hunters, having to settle for less and paying more, which will serve them right.

By: Loner on 10/5/12 at 11:27

I think there is some truth to the allegation that many US employers are sandbagging...waiting for the Democrat in the White House to be removed, before hiring more workers....if Romney gets in, they'll immediately start hiring, to fulfill their own prophecies....or is that just a conspiracy theory?

By: pswindle on 10/5/12 at 11:53

Moonglow l.
I agree, Mitt was high on something and he still is. I saw him this morning on TV and he was talking fast and jumping around like a mad man. He was jumping from one subject to another and not having a complete thought. Big Bird is so vital to children that do not have the same opportunity as those with money. Children develop skills for schools from watching programs like Big Bird. This just shows that anything that helps those in need, Mitt wants to cut the funding. What a joke this man is!

By: Loner on 10/5/12 at 12:09

Yeah, Romney's gonna bleed out Big Bird, then decapitate the famous fowl, then pluck & gut the big bird ...then slowly roast the fattened carcass of that annoying feathered f*ggot....Bon appetit....should be finger-lickin' good.

By: dargent7 on 10/5/12 at 12:27

This guy Romney is just like the guy who gets pulled over by the cops after leaving a bar and says, when asked, "Have you been drinking"? And of course he says, "Why, no".
He was caught dead to rights with that 45 second CLEAR (no static, breaks, pauses) candid statement.
Now, to say he "misspoke", didn't articulate", wasn't eloquent" is pure bullshit.
Everyone knows it.
It's been a pattern of his and Lovey's all year. They're multi-millionaires, both have several off-shore bank accounts, all 5 sons just shuck for daddy to become President.
If any of those sissies enlisted in the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan I'd have more respect. All they do is breed. 10x more than the Kennedys.
I hope the press delves into the Mormon cult to expose these people for who they are.

By: gdiafante on 10/5/12 at 12:32

Well I certainly don't believe Mitt. If he would have acted like that (the rhetoric of the debate) in the GOP primary debates, maybe...but everything else up to that point indicates that he will ignore the middle class and slide our country back to the point it was in 2006 and 2007 when the bubbles were about to burst. It really makes no sense.

Now, I don't believe Obama is a leader, but I'm more in tune with his belief about a thriving middle class than any trickle down theory. I'd also like to see the government rolled back and reformed but it makes no sense to do it when the country is in pain.

Let's get the economy rolling...improve the revenue and start to pay down the debt, then we can deal with the size of the government and its efficiency. One problem at a time.

By: budlight on 10/5/12 at 12:35

Romney is an animated empty suit, stuffed with one-liners and zingers....we need a real leader, not a wise-assed but vacuous election winner.

Yeah, Loner. A real leader who waits days before realizing that an ambassador has been killed in an act of Terrorism. Or a real leader who sits on the View and Kimmel and yucks it up while folks are dying on his watch and the UN is in session and he's snubbing world leaders.

Yeah, he's a leader. Or is that litre? He's a hoax. He's a con artist of the most dangerous kind. He appeals to the fringes of society who are wanting something from our government for nothing.

Romney will win. Romney is a winner. I don't want a president who plays as much or more golf than a professional golfer. He's a party guy - partying withJZ and Bounce (while the rest of the world suffers).

By: gdiafante on 10/5/12 at 12:39

[click]

By: Blanketnazi2 on 10/5/12 at 12:40

[fail]

By: budlight on 10/5/12 at 12:40

pswindle on 10/5/12 at 11:53
Moonglow l.
I agree, Mitt was high on something and he still is. I saw him this morning on TV and he was talking fast and jumping around like a mad man. He was jumping from one subject to another and not having a complete thought. Big Bird is so vital to children that do not have the same opportunity as those with money. Children develop skills for schools from watching programs like Big Bird. This just shows that anything that helps those in need, Mitt wants to cut the funding. What a joke this man is!

OMG, how did people like Bill Gates or others in the classes before him ever make it without Big Bird? Please, Swindle. There are many kids who do not know who BigBird is and they do just fine. Children develop skills by watching and being taught by other human beings. They develop skills by watching and listening to their parents. They develop skills from many areas, so a Big Bird is not vital to education. Or else where would the great scholars of the past have gotten their knowledge? You libs will say and do anything to keep your "programs" getting funded.

NPR and NPT is so liberal. I used to listen and DONATE. Not any more. I'll donate my money to The Rescue Mission, The Salvation Army and the Nashville Humane Society before those crooks get my money.

By: Ask01 on 10/5/12 at 12:43

Actually, Loner, I have had the same theory since the biggest spiral of job losses seemed to coincide, at least in my recollection, to President Obama being elected.

Considering the extremely partisan nature of politics these days, and the propensity for the Republicans to derail, sidetrack, and otherwise demean most any legislation the president has proposed, the probability is very high this is more than paraoid conspiracy theory.

One issue not brought forward during the debates is Congress pretty much controls the purse strings and decides where to spend money. The president proposes and has some veto power, even though even that can be over ridden, but the people largely responsible for the state of the economy reside outside the Oval Office.

So why would the economy and job situation begin to improve before the election? Perhaps the business community, at least some, recognizing the signs of potential revolt, and smelling the rapidly deteriorating Willard presidential campaign, hoping to forestall a revolution and inject some money into the economy to stimulate spending are breaking ranks with the other conspirators.

That's the story we need to spread anyway.

The frightening part is I may not be as paranoid delusional as some believe.

By: Mike Burch on 10/5/12 at 12:44

Loner,

You said, "The choice is an easy one, vote for Barack Hussein Obama in November....send Bishop Romney back to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir."

I agree. Bishop Romney has revealed his true nature to us, time and time again. Like Richard Nixon, he can't fully disguise his essential creepiness. He seems to clearly disdain millions of Americans who aren't as handsome, healthy and successful as he is (or thinks he is). He tries to hide his real feelings, exuding a sort of artificial light and warmth, but then his real nature emerges and his spots change like a chameleon.

For instance, during the debate his treatment of the elderly moderator was disgusting. Yes, Jim Lehrer could have done a better job, but that doesn't excuse Romney's high-handing bullying.

President Obama could have done better, in terms of style, but I think one reason that he backed off a bit was because he felt compassion for Jim Lehrer . That should be a mark in his favor, in my opinion.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 10/5/12 at 1:16

It's insane enough that someone as creepy and hateful as Romney has managed to become a Bishop, let alone come this far in the process for campaigning to be POTUS.

By: slacker on 10/5/12 at 1:21

Yeah Burch.. that's it.. Obama backed off to show compassion for Lehrer.
I recall Obama chiding Lehrer for interrupting him.
Did you miss that?

By: Loner on 10/5/12 at 1:24

We are not alone, Ask01....many are seeing this for what it really is: partisan economic sand-bagging.

Mike, thanks for reading my comment. I agree, there was a certain creepiness about Tricky Dick....Willard has that same aura, but he is a better-looking, kinder & gentler-looking man, compared with Nixon.

Richard Nixon looked like a crook and a creep and he still got away with murder...under Romney, things could get really bad, real quick....unlike Nixon, the Bishop is on a mission from God....that makes him exceedingly dangerous to America's national interests.

Remember, John Bolton is Romney's chief foreign policy adviser....a vote for Romney is a vote for the neocons. We need to get the word out on who Romney would appoint to cabinet-level positions...do we want John Bolton as our Sec. of State?

By: gdiafante on 10/5/12 at 1:33

I'm not sure the incessant need to make excuses for Obama in regards to the debate...he lost...he got his butt kicked. It happens. Sometimes, people aren't on their game.

Now we have a history of Obama in debates that says this was probably an aberration...so let's stop with the it was the altitude or he was being nice to the moderator BS...

By: gdiafante on 10/5/12 at 1:53

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/10/does-the-white-house-manipulate-jobs-numbers/

Yeah...the GOP is bunch of goddamned whiners...instead of being happy that people are working, they automatically think there's a fix.

By: Loner on 10/5/12 at 1:56

The debate was a draw, IMO...there was no "Blow-out" as the right-wing blowhards claim.

Romney did more glaring and smirking at his opponent, than the POTUS did....Romney out-blinked the Prez by 10 to 1, at least.....Romney's eyes were big as saucers as he spewed out a prepared rant....Obama, on the other hand, looked more somber, more collected, more pensive...in a word, Obama looked "presidential"....less "wild-eyed" and manic than Willard looked.

By: gdiafante on 10/5/12 at 2:12

Obama was taken back by Romney's attacks. I watched a rerun of it and it was clear early that the President wasn't on his game. He (Obama) also looked like he was given instructions not to stray too much away from whatever he rehearsed and didn't seem to be addressing Romney, as Romney was directing much of his answers toward the President.

He improved as it went on, but the damage was done. Both candidates mangled the truth, but Romney presented his argument much better, more forceful and sure of what he wanted to articulate.

It's over now, the score is Romney 1, Obama 0. Time to move on.

By: Loner on 10/5/12 at 2:14

I scored it as a draw. Time to run....later.

By: Captain Nemo on 10/5/12 at 2:21

Hello d7 how are things with you?

By: Captain Nemo on 10/5/12 at 2:22

Where have you been slacker?

By: Captain Nemo on 10/5/12 at 2:23

I'll see you tomorrow, Blanket.

By: bfra on 10/5/12 at 2:25

D7 - Good to hear from you! Hope you continue to post no matter where you are.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 10/5/12 at 2:25

Looking forward to it!

By: yogiman on 10/5/12 at 2:43

Loner,

You're very, very, competitive with Mike on that comedian factor. It was hard to quit laughing when I read your 11:01 post. Gotta nutha one?

By: slacker on 10/5/12 at 2:44

Nemo, I've been at Orange beach, Alabama. Thanks for asking.

By: yogiman on 10/5/12 at 2:50

dargent7,

I believe you're about the same age as the young Romney men, May I ask what years you was in service? What conflict was we involved in?

By: bfra on 10/5/12 at 2:52

(click) (fail)

By: Ask01 on 10/5/12 at 4:36

dargent7 is not the topic of conversation.

Quite honestly, a persons status as a veteran or non veteran really bears no significance, although I will usually lend more credence to a veterans opinion on matters concerning the military and national security.

The issue as far as Willard's sons is concerned would attract attract more interest if the unthinkable were to happen and he actually win the election. I fear, as an often besotted friend of mine has assessed the situation and declared, "The excrement is gonna impact the oscillator and we're gonna be knee deep in WW Iran."

I believe Willard will follow the Bush Gambit and find some reason, perhaps a failed attack on Israel, as an excuse to send other people's children off to war.

Then, the military service of Willard and son's would be an issue for me, wondering if he has any idea what America's best and brightest are being sent into?

Even then, the question of dargent7's status is an invalid and pointless question.

By: yogiman on 10/5/12 at 6:11

You're a veteran, Ask01. You should know what it means to "volunteer". Romney and his sons are being criticized for not volunteering for service. Well, did Romney know he was going to run for president of the USA in his later years? Did his sons know their dad was going to run for office in his later years? Hell, did you know you was going to volunteer before you decided to?

And lo and behold, Barry is approximately the same age as Romney's sons but I haven't heard one word criticizing him for not volunteering. Why? Could it be because he wasn't an American? As you know, we even take foreigner as volunteers in our services.

Could it be he didn't because he was going to school? Wasn't that an excuse for Romney's sons also?

You make a comment about going to war with Iran if Romney is elected. Does than mean there was nothing wrong for Obama to attack Libya without Congress' approval again?

You Obama fans are good throwers of criticism but lousy receivers.

What will be the difference between going to war with Iran or Libya? My answer? It will depend on who's in office at that time.You made a comment about going to war with Iran if Romney is elected.

And haven't you heard of Obama's thoughts about war with Libya again? Let's hope he gets congressional approval before he does that this time.

With his czars in office, he, nor they, feel they are responsible to congress. What president before Obama had czars in office?

By: Ask01 on 10/5/12 at 7:51

(CLICK)

By: yogiman on 10/5/12 at 8:45

Well, children (especially you and Loner, Ask01,

You only seem to blame the republican side for the condition our nation is in today by claiming they are sandbagging before creating new jobs. But remember, Obama had the hand of a democratic controlled congress for six month when he went in office. Can I only presume your thought as a known fact or could it be just a simple minded thought?

Can't you consider the employers might be holding back because the doesn't want to take a chance on losing a fortune the way Obama is running the country in a devastating manner?

Obama in a politician in position only, he has proven he isn't mentally by the way he has acted in the State and National Senates. Why only "present" votes? Didn't he know what he was being asked to vote on so many times?

Can't you believe the employers don't want to hire someone today and maybe have to fire them in just a few week, or months. That alone could be devastating to the employees; and employers.

How would you like to be hired today and fired tomorrow? Unless you would just want to re-qualify for unemployment. I doubt if you would.

By: Ask01 on 10/6/12 at 5:39

(CLICK)

By: parnell3rd on 10/6/12 at 6:25

Capt's 7:37 post shows his racist colors. Yea, Lone,r Barrack Hussine Obama has experience in taking a world tour, apologizing, playing golf, taking vacations, and driving up the national debt more than most previous President's combined.
4 more years of that will lead the USA into civil unrest.

By: parnell3rd on 10/6/12 at 6:28

Just more propaganda put out for the democratic followers to drink the kool aide. Even the next day our President was repeating the same lies.

By: Ask01 on 10/6/12 at 6:32

It was inevitable someone would mention the first six months, but conveniently ignore the next 3.5 years as the GOP, in cahoots with business, would undermine the entire nation all for the sake of defaming the duly elected and certified President of the United States.

Strangely, business people and corporate executives, who usually brag about their bravery in seeking new opportunities, taking risks, and creating jobs spent the last three years hunkering down and hoarding their money and sending the middle class into a tail spin, with Willard waiting in the wings to cut funding for crash equipment.

Spin as one might, more and more voters are realizing the crisis was orchestrated by the 1% as punishment for electing Barack Obama president.

The middle class is angry and will not soon forget the haughty attitude displayed by Willard and company. Worse for them, the middle class children are horrified Willard will gut Big Bird for Thanksgiving dinner.

As far as being hired one day to be fired the next, legislation can fix that problem. The right to work concept in Tennessee, or better phrased as right to fire at will needs to be declared illegal so employers must present reasonable justification for releasing an employee.

For what it is worth, I will make a confession. When I was laid off from my previous job, I registered for but never collected unemployment. I was entitled to do so, but, since my military pension and wife's income kept us above water, I felt to do so was in some way working the system. Legally correct, but to me, morally wrong.

So much for getting hired to requalify for unemployment.

By: Captain Nemo on 10/6/12 at 9:05

What is the matter p3, you think that by telling the truth about Birthiers makes me a racist. I always fine your little post telling of your mentality. Small and narrow.

By: Ask01 on 10/6/12 at 11:21

Captain, if doubting the motives of the 'birthers,' suspecting racial undertones drive the vitriole they direct at President Obama makes one a racist, I fear I will also be forced to bear that brand.

Honestly, I believe you are correct. Whereas many Democrats advocated anyone but Bush or another Republican the last election cycle, the Republicans and their various progeny are taking up the mantra of anyone (white) except Obama this cycle.

I didn't vote for President Obama, but I can recognize Willard will do more harm than good for this country.

I can also recognize that much of the rhetoric spewed by Willard was, shall we say, inaccurate. The latest issue of the AARP magazine has an interesting article which pretty much refutes, as best I understood, all of the disinformation spread like so much manure.

Likewise the issue of jobs. Reports show more jobs being created and the economy slowly recovering. What would Willard do to speed up the process? I cannot recall a single specific item he mentioned. I fear if he did accelerate the process artificially, the result would mirror many fad diets popular over the years. A sudden loss of weight, in this case jobs created, followed by, once the quick fix is removed, a sudden and even greater weight gain, or in this analogy a rapid loss of even more jobs. The end result leaving us worse off.

Of course, the brief period of prosperity would allow Willard and cohorts to amass even more money, then drop companies like a rotten egg once they've squeezed all they can from the withered husk.

For some reason the birther, a discredited, disregarded fringe group these days, cannot see this as they march lockstep toward the cliff with Willard playing the pipe.

By: yogiman on 10/6/12 at 1:09

I beg to differ with you again, Ask01. In your 0632 post you made the statement "... for the sake of defaming the duly elected and certified President...".

May I offer this argument: First, with the known history of him, Obama refused to identify himself. Second, Obama refused to prove he was eligible to run for that office per the requirements or our Constitution and continues to do so. Third: If Obama, in fact, wasn't eligible to run for that office, he could not have won it even with the vast majority of the popular vote and could not be legally elected by the Electoral College and approved by the Senate.

You cannot legally win a race you aren't legally eligible for, and qualified to run in, regardless of the vote you receive. So why has Obama continued to refuse to prove his eligibility from day one?

By: yogiman on 10/6/12 at 1:15

Let's drop this race issue off of this argument, Ask01. Let's use the "white half" of Obama in this argument. Would he get the same advantage of your arguments as he's getting now in using the racial factor?

By: Ask01 on 10/6/12 at 1:58

(CLICK)

By: yogiman on 10/6/12 at 3:03

Well, Ask01,

It looks like you have fallen into the program with your fellow usurper admirers. I wish I could see what y'all look like on November 7 when you get up and look in your mirror.

I would have a great laugh. Only 32 days left. I just hope the communist party hasn't gained control, but with congress lying in the bed they're in now makes me wonder.

By: Ask01 on 10/6/12 at 3:17

Returning to the original subject of this column, I noticed an item on another site in which the GOP declared the numbers and statistics on the economic health of the nation and increased employment were not reliable and untrustworthy.

I wonder if the Republicans and Willard are willing to cede their numbers are also unreliable?

Perhaps, though, we have just another circumstance in which Willard & Co. are speaking from yet another mouth to say whatever the party faithful wish to hear in between sips of kool aid.

That sums up the situation nicely, I believe.

Oh, by the way, (CLICK).

By: yogiman on 10/7/12 at 8:13

How about clicking your switch "on", Ask01, and tell me why, as a veteran, you are so willing to accept a man as your president when you have no idea who he is. I'm curious that a fellow veteran could be so willing to accept a man as his president who refuses to identify himself.

So tell me, if a situation arose and you had to go back in service to defend our nation, would you want a man as your CIC who you had no idea who in the hell he was? Could you be so sure he wasn't on duty serving your enemy?

You can click your button back off now.

By: yogiman on 10/7/12 at 2:12

I see where a school district in Texas is telling the students (children) in their high school and middle school if they won't wear a radio chip for identity they must leave school.

I thought the schools were there to educate the children, not put them under superior's control.

How soon will that Texas scheme spread over this nation? Too damn soon, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid what used to be the "good ol' USA" is turning out to be: This is the USA, what did it use to be like?

It looks like the communist party has succeeded by taking over the education of the children and teaching them to become good communists in the party.

By: FaceBook:Emmett... on 10/8/12 at 10:08

Romney showed BoyObaMao for the vacuous stooge he is. I suspect the Dems are scared spitless of how Ryan is likely to similarly dispatch the buffoon Joe Biden this week.

By: Ask01 on 10/9/12 at 4:49

epublicans are trumpeting recent polls. Of course, everything hinges on where the polls are conducted.

The true poll will be in November.