by Jack
And it started off so good…. Candy Crowley looked like she was fully prepared to avoid the mistakes of former debate moderators, then she did the unthinkable, in the middle of the debate she corrected Mitt Romney and sided with Barack Obama! And this caused many in the audience to applaud her, then this morphed quickly into what appeared to be an applause for Obama. This was a serious breach of the rules and it made me think that the democrats had penetrated the debate.
For those of you who missed this embarrassing moment, one that will surely go down in debate history as a colossal blunder, let me tell you the whole story:
The question from the audience was to Obama, who was responsible for not beefing up security at the Benghazi embassy prior to the 9/11 attack?
Obama side stepped a direct answer and used this time to illustrate the great sorrow he felt, about his heavy responsibilities, all to evoke sympathy. Obama eventually got around to saying the Benghazi attack was “an act of terror” and he said so the very next day during a statement in the Rose Garden. This was a total distortion of what he really said.
This was just the kind of gross deception Romney needed to expose Obama and he was fully prepared to take him down, until Candy Crowley came to Obama’s rescue.
Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?… I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror… The administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction…”
Obama fired back without hesitation, “Get the transcript!”
Then Ms. Crowley inserted herself into this testy exchange and she did the inexecusable…she corrected Romney and said she recalled that he did call it an act of terror. This blunted his attack and turned a gotcha moment into a total disaster. Romney was flustered. Crowley made him look uninformed and foolish.
Not to miss an opportunity to drive the point home Obama responded, “Could you say that a little louder Candy!” And she did. “He did call it an act of terror” and then she tried to offer Romney a bone of consolation when she said, “It did as well take about two weeks or so out there, for there to be a write up about this tape…” Now she sounded flustered, possibly just realizing what she had done. The damage was there and it seemed like Romney never quite recovered from being totally blindsided by the moderator. Who knew she was another follower of the Messiah?
Obama did say in the Rose Garden speech, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” this was a generalized sort of comment and of course democrats are going to say critics are parsing words…that was close enough. However, it was not an acknowledgement that we had been hit in a full on terrorist attack on 9/11. And Obama went on to say something about the video that his administration was claiming started it all, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” As you may know, the administration eventually admitted it was a terror attack linked to al Qaeda sympathizers.
The following is Obama’s speech and you can read it and see for yourself.
Rose Garden
10:43 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. (attack, not terrorist attack) We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. (Still no mention of terrorism)
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. (Terrorist word still not mention)
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. (No evidence of that, just the opposite) Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died. (They paraded his body around like a trophy and sang victory songs)
It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
(Then finally this generalized statement without applying it to Benghazi) No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. (This was the only indirect reference to terrorism in the whole speech and at the same time his administration was putting out the line this event was sparked by a video and that is was an unforeseeable event.)
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America
Romney was absolutely right and he was derailed by Crowley, and of course Obama played it up big.
Remember, right after the attack Obama’s Ambassador to the UN went on five talk shows to tell the nation it wasn’t Obama’s fault! It was because of a video, and it was one of those tragic things, a protest spun out of control and bad things followed.
Obama also got away with several more lies, he called the Arizona Immigration Law a law that allowed any police officer to stop anyone whom he suspected was an illegal alien. That was an outright lied and Romney didn’t call him on it. Obama then tried to defend his dismal record on issuing more drilling permits that George Bush and had actually increased drilling, not decreased drilling. Romney did try to refute this lie, but Obama seemed more convincing.
The irony was that Obama acted all backed up at the insinuation that he or any of his staff would dare use the deaths at Benghazi for political purposes! He said he flew out to meet the caskets of these fallen men. But, what the audience didn’t know was that the family of the men had asked that the press be barred. Obama allowed the press… but it was not for political purposes mind you.
I want to know when Obama is going to debate two people at one time? I know the answers is never, he cant even pull off a one on one. This thing came off just as I figured it would, the mugging of Romney by the Left. This was not a “Setback for Romney”, people are not stupid they saw this for what it was.
What I think the Hofstra debate did was reenergize the democratic base. Look out Romney for the next debate in my state of Florida.
Did you notice that the questions, save for one about Benghazi came from the left’s point of view? Toby said it right, it was a mugging!!!
The questions from the dumb audience, and they were, what are you going to do for me? What are you going to do about AK 47’s? What are you going to do to help me find a job when I graduate? Son of @#$%!…wha! wha! wha!
Then both Romney and Obama did this incredible suck up, where they both stepped forward toward the question asker, they thanked them for their brilliant question, they called them by their first name and they talked directly to them like that one voter was the key to victory…ARrrrrrgggghhhh!!!!! How choreographed, how cheesey and how unpresidential of them. It was disgusting. They should have just answered the freaking questions without all the suck up crap!!! Geez I am mad…I hated this whole debate and coming from FOX News? What a total let down.
Tina? Right?
Ask me how I knew.
Let’s not be giving people even more unstable than you ideas … ok? You really don’t seem to grasp the responsibility to society you have here … with the power to put things into print.
It may be I’m overly sensitive these days. Been reading about Michael Brutsch’s little empire and about Amanda Todd’s tormentors, and I’m not happy about any of it.
I think what upsets me the most is that this is what the Republican party has become. Are we really supposed to split hairs between “attack” “terrorist attack” “terrorist act” or “act of terror”? This is just stupid and the question was stupid.
The biggest problem I have last night is Mitt Romney and the fact that he was shoved onto Republican voters and we are supposed to cheer and root for him and defend him no matter how terrible he is. And he is awful.
Mitt Romney wrote Obamacare. That is his plan. Period.
Mitt Romney last night proposed that we eliminate all taxes on investment income for people making less than $250,000 a year. Mitt Romney makes less than $250,000 a year so this means he wants to pay zero taxes. This from a man who has so much love for America he invests in offshore accounts instead of in the US. This used to be a Republican issue. Now we defend giving jobs to other countries.
Mitt Romney is telling us we need to get serious with Iran. What has all of our defense spending gotten us? We spend more than almost all other militarized countries combined and we got our butts kicked in Afghanistan and Iraq by suicide bombers and insurgents. And I’m supposed to think cuts to our defense budget are disastrous but cuts to education, medicare and social security are necessary?
And finally, how on earth can any Republican anywhere defend Sensata in Freeport Illinois? It is exactly what is wrong with this country. Shipping our jobs to China.
Both men on that stage last night disgusted me.
“This thing came off just as I figured it would, the mugging of Romney by the Left”
You can’t be serious. Romney is his own worst enemy because he will say anything to get elected. Do you remember Romney telling us he is going to get rid of Planned Parenthood federal funding? Remember religious freedom for employers? Well he supported his Romneycare/Obamacare last night in the debate:
“MR. ROMNEY: I Id just note that I dont believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I dont believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. ”
I happen to agree with him on this, which is why I paid such close attention when he said it last night. Because I remember him saying the exact opposite months ago and I didn’t like his position. We need more birth control in America, not less.
As long as we keep making excuses for Romney being a terrible candidate we are never going to get the candidates we deserve.
The format, Townhall, is the reason candidates addressed themselves to the questioner initially in their responses. This was a matter of common courtesy. Crowley’s purpose was to keep it from becoming a free for all…she stepped over her limited role. Crowley made an attempt to be fair but was overcome with partisan favoritism when Obama was placed in an area of vulnerability. She gave more time overall to Obama according to reports.
The tweets for each candidate were about equal and not surprisingly bitterly partisan. Romney had a slight edge in favorables amongst those on Twitter.
Obama managed to show up this time and that’s to his credit, although from my perspective it only shows he realizes the tide is turning against him. I found him arrogant and aggressive (thug) rather than confident or assertive in many situations. His several lies , as Jack pointed out, are marks against him. He was not able to defend his record and his promises for the future were vague and painted in the same old colors of “hope and change”. I don’t think his responses won votes for him but he probably satisfied his base.
Romney was prepared and remained for the most part poised and confident but missed several opportunities. Since he was interrupted its hard to say whether he might have done a better job given the space to complete his thoughts.
The President has no credibility on the Benghazi terror attack. Not only did he and his administration choose to shift responsibility away from himself and his administration, he did it by making the enemy an obscure video that they called Heinous, offensive but that nobody had seen. He attempted to hide the fact that this was an Al Qaeda terror attack that was planned to coincide with the 911 anniversary. He did this for political reasons. This isn’t surprising. In actuality the President has refused to fully and adequately define (name) the enemy that attacked us on 911…radical Islam. His refusal gives power to the Islamists and their determination to control speech…he has empowered them in their quest to make us subservient. Obama attempts to be on both sides of the issue, both a fighter of terrorism and an appeaser to Islam and does neither effectively.
We cannot abide a president who will not stand firmly behind America and the Constitution. We cannot abide a President who places his own political fortunes ahead of the most important duties of his office.
The continuous lie about “what got us into this mess” must also be exposed. Romney didn’t take the opportunity other than to point out that Obama has failed to improve the economy (It is in fact a spectacular failure!).
The debt Obama inherited was a result of too much spending; both democrats and republicans hold responsibility for that. Republicans in control in the early years under Bush spent too much but in the last year or two of their control the debt was starting to come down. Democrats were in charge in Congress in the last two years of the Bush administration and spending increased dramatically under Pelosi. Bush signed the budget legislation without objection…a huge mistake.
BUT…the MESS we are in is a direct result of democrat inspired policy and legislation. The entitlements, Social Security and Medicare, are unsustainable and adding to the debt year after year. The Community Reinvestment Act was expanded under Bill Clinton and throughout the Bush years created a growing cancer in lending and securities that became a bubble and crashed in the midst of a slight recession that began in 2007 and ended in 2009. The losses we all experienced in property and investments are a result of the housing crash and not the recession. The non-recovery of the Obama administration policies have meant a sluggish economy and not much help for housing or investment.
The President has wrongly stated that an unfunded war caused the mess we’re in. That is a blatant misrepresentation. The war was authorized and funded by Congress under the Constitutional provision of defense of the nation by members of both parties. Almost all of the rest of the budgeted items are expenditures that, according to the Constitution should be left to the people and the states. These expenditures have grown and grown through the decades, some represent wasteful pork spending, some of them have not accomplished the goals that were intended, and others are simply unsustainable and add to the debt every year. These out of control expenditures coupled with the housing and lending debacle are the causes of the mess that Obama faced in 2008. The recession ended in June of 2009 and since the enactment of Obama polices that year, recovery has been blunted and the mess has gotten worse!
The “mess we are in” today is a direct result of the private sector sluggishness that Obama’s redistribution, picking winners and losers policies. They are: Continued and worsening high unemployment; businesses closing; higher poverty rates; median family income down; health insurance premiums up; national debt $5 Trillion higher, housing sector slow to improve, private business under attack (coal, gas, Gibson Guitars, Boeing, small banks, insurance); cash for green industry wasted or sent to foreign countries; failing green energy even with subsidies; uncertainty about the future.
The media will all claim Obama won last night. Obama was as he has been over the last almost four years, deceitful and agenda driven, a smooth talker without understanding of economics and the private sector, a man who seeks to please everyone and is therefore ineffective at governing.
He is a community organizer and should be playing at the local level.
“The questions from the dumb audience, and they were, what are you going to do for me? What are you going to do about AK 47’s? What are you going to do to help me find a job when I graduate? Son of @#$%!…wha! wha! wha! ”
This was the most offensive thing about the debate. That a roomful of MORONS who at this late date are supposedly still “undecided.” Why on earth would we reward idiots like this with having so much power and influence in the national election discussion? Why should people who are so uninformed and so ignorant that they are “undecided” get to ask first-hand questions of candidates?
Instead of “gotcha” questions or sound bites, or zingers; Americans deserve carefully crafted questions that reflect what real people are suffering or experiencing. Not what some ignoramus undecided voter thinks is important.
Princess we get it. The perfect man is not running. Some of what you complain about is valid; other things are just silly or completely wrong:
“Romney is his own worst enemy because he will say anything to get elected. Do you remember Romney telling us he is going to get rid of Planned Parenthood federal funding?”
I believe Romney has said we have to look at all spending. Big Bird and Planned Parenthood fall under that category as do many other things. Planned Parenthood is a profit making machine that pretends to be non-profit…I think this is one “company” that deserves serious scrutiny both in terms of its need for government subsidy and for its tax status!
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/27/the-profitable-nonprofit
April 2009
We also have plenty of birth control in America. What we need is more people willing to take responsibility! Government should be neutral!
Making the case for an imperfect candidate, THEY ALL ARE, is not “making excuses”. Get on board for Romney, vote for the other guy, or stay home.
The time to be critical and press for better candidates is not during the election. During the election we pick and team and play to win. You don’t have to lie or make excuses but you also don’t have to take the ball and give it to the competitor! Geesh!
I had a very different take on the town hall debate last night. The encounter was more balanced than the first. By that I mean Obama at least had a response. His demeanor and responses still indicated this was what he considered to be beneath him. The specific question from the african american in the audience, “Why do you deserve my vote this time?” was never answered. He talked in generalities without specifics.
He also spoke untruths when he said that under his administration, oil production had gone up. Romney came back at him on every point.
Crowley interrupted Romney on more than one occasion. i.e. as he was making his point on ak47’s, the fast and furious debacle.
Romney outlined the major failures of this administration.
Increases in food stamp recipients, 32 to 47 million. The decline in personal income, the increase in the cost of gas from $1.85 to $4.00+ per gal. Increase in the national debt and so on.
After the town hall, Crowley said that she took her cue from Obama to interrupt Romney over the act of terror remark. In this mornings news programs, she took back her comment.
Romney may have been taken back by her actions, however, he maintained his decorum at all times and acted very presidential. Romney was given 10% less time to talk and yet he made his points.
Libby: “‘The only way Romney is going to win this now is if somebody bumps off Obama.’
Tina? Right?
Ask me how I knew.”
Are we speaking figuratively here Libby? I hope so because if not you have made yourself a truly despicable character…not to mention hypocritical. Let’s not forget how you spoke, and continue to speak, about the former president. I don’t believe I, or anyone else, ever accused you of being an assassin, either figuratively or literally, even though the lies you and your party relentlessly put forth about the war and the economy under Bush were political character assassinations, pure and simple.
“Why should people who are so uninformed and so ignorant that they are “undecided” get to ask first-hand questions of candidates?
Instead of “gotcha” questions or sound bites, or zingers; Americans deserve carefully crafted questions that reflect what real people are suffering or experiencing. Not what some ignoramus undecided voter thinks is important.”
BIG APPLAUSE! You are so right. Unfortunately the undecideds are coddled and given the spotlight because the nation is otherwise divided and the thinking is these votes will sway the election. I say even if this is true should these people decide based on substance rather than showmanship?
This should become a demand and sent to every news outlet, party, and government official in the country! Also…can we have moderators that aren’t rooting for the other side.
It appears Princess is another Libby with just about as much sense and validity. Yet she thinks it is her duty to carry water for the dark side.
In all three debates Democrats got more time to speak. SURPRISE SURPRISE!
Candy Crowley is responsible for one of the most egregious misjudgments of any moderator in the history of presidential debates. Not only did she throw Obama a rope (which was received with DemocRAT applause, also a violation of debate rules) SHE LIED!
Obama DID NOT call the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden. He spoke of terrorism in general terms and in fact implied that the events were a reaction to the YouTube tape.
On “The View”, Obama still refused to call it a terrorist act. Now he poses as if he and his administration never pushed the “blame the video” nonsense for over a week.
So, Obama is a liar, Candy Crowley is a liar and is in the bag for Obama, and Princess has repeatedly demonstrated that she is a fool and a liar.
Mitt Romney did not write Obamacare, that was Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the DemocRATS. Evidently Princess actually believes it was Romney who wrote that 2700+ page, OVER one million word monstrosity. What utter lunacy! Nancy Pelosi who recently claimed to have read finally, long after she she said it had to be passed before anyone can know what is in it, and her Democratic party lunatics wrote Obamacare. THEY OWN IT, Princess.
As for the rest of your remarks, Princess, your interpretation of Romney’s points and silly attack are not even worth bothering to answer. (Romney wants to not raise taxes to keep his bracket low? That is positively idiotic.)
Romney is not a terrible candidate and he is the only candidate available to fill Obama’s empty chair. Go ahead, Princess, continue to carry water for Obama, split your own hairs and vote for the Liar In Chief.
You disgust me.
pal, you are an astute observer and summed up most of the major points very nicely. I’m still burning over how left the questions were and how the moderator and Obama ganged up on Romney.
I didn’t like the style of the debate either. I thought the dolts asking dumb questions didn’t deserve to be there, so I agree with Tina on that point, and what’s with the tweets? What is the relevance of a tweet? 90,000, 100,000 tweets, so what? What does it mean in terms of voters and how does it relate to the questions?
Pie, I hear you. I got into it today with a democrat who said Obama did in fact call Benghazi a terrorist attack on 9/12 and I said that was total, “B– S—–T!!!!!” I felt bad because I usually behave myself better than that, especially in public. It was not my intention to try to intimidate the man, but I had a lot on my mind this morning and that one just hit me wrong and I lost it…my bad.
Libby, okay you’re right…I withdrew my comment about Obama. I was being too cynical and emotional, this has been a bad morning for me. I must try to keep a positive attitude and this jab was not helpful. Now you’re turn, anything you would like to say I was right about? Probably not. -Jack
Check it out…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/curl-crowley-skews-hard-obama-disastrous-debate/
And you, Pie, get the “Most Like Violentacrez Award” on this site.
Congratulations!
Jack … I’m sorry about your friend. If he was the first, he won’t be the last. This is a trying time of life.
And politically, you must take heart! That Romney could, in Debate One, stand up there and tell all those fibs, and not get called on any of them, AND … have the polls move in this favor … that was a bummer … and still is. He’s got a decent shot.
I have chided you before about letting your unliberal media whip you into a froth over nothing.
It is absolutely true that it took the Administration at least two days you determine that the Benghazi attack was not a spontaineous response to the moronic video, but planned anniversary retaliation. The OA was tasked with getting coherent information from scattered and traumatized staff, not to mention the shredded infrastructure on the Libyan side. It did not go well.
But it was all, always characterized as a terrorist assault.
We didn’t know our Nigerian embassy would be bombed. We didn’t know the Cole would be attacked … and we didn’t know about this. We’re three for three.
So your frothing over Obama’s personal responsibility for yet another “incident” is really kind of biased, politically, and ultimately pointless, don’t you think?
Jack: “and what’s with the tweets? What is the relevance of a tweet? 90,000, 100,000 tweets, so what? What does it mean in terms of voters and how does it relate to the questions? ”
No particular relevance so far, I just thought it was interesting. the kid that is tracking the tweets came up with a software program that tracks not only the numbers in terms of candidate preference but also measures the positive/negative aspect of the tweets. I thought it was a clever way to track voter sentiment among those who are voicing opinions on twitter…a lot of them are very involved voters.
Dang I missed your comment about Obama. I can’t imagine that it was any worse than Libby indicating I might be a candidate to “bump off” (murder? Lynch?) Obama. I’m not sure she deserves an apology…she never treated President Bush with respect…not even once that I can recall…and she just said that Romney lied through the first debate without backing up her claim…she never does. (PS You’re not expected to get in the middle of this cat fight, lol…just expressing my complete disdain for Libby comments today)
If the president just wanted to wait until he could get the facts right why were he, his staff, and his mouthpieces insisting to anyone with a microphone that that evil video was the cause of the “spontaneous protest” gone wild?
Obama wanted cover for the fact that terrorist have been strengthened and terror attacks are on the rise under his watch. The election looms and the timing and loss of life in this successful attack on America was inconvenient…he needed a fall guy!
Evidence of emboldened terrorists:
Watch for some kind of hero play from the Obama administration/campaign on this. He has to try to redeem his miserable record…including bragging about killing Bin Laden…so tacky…and doesn’t that kind of arrogant in your face talk just “make them mad?”
In Lybia the policy was “your on your own”…not at all presidential and not at all responsible…and the cover up is really grody to the max since people died.
I understand the families requested the return of the bodies not be made into a photo op and of course their request was ignored also. Tacky!
One of the glaring ommissions on the issue of the Libya denial was the fact that our govt spent $70 million to take out ads apologizing for the video that was initially blamed for this attack. That $70 million would have been better served helping some of the un or underemployed in America or better yet protecting our citizens in hostile countries. None of the meat of this issue was allowed to be presented.
On a personal note, Jack, I am sorry for the loss of your friend.
“Dang I missed your comment about Obama. I can’t imagine that it was any worse than Libby indicating I might be a candidate to “bump off” (murder? Lynch?) Obama.”
Well, you do tend to be more extravagant in your rhetoric than Jack. And I still maintain that holding out the assassination of one of the candidates as a political option is irresponsible. And then there’s all this:
“If the president just wanted to wait until he could get the facts right why were he, his staff, and his mouthpieces insisting to anyone with a microphone that that evil video was the cause of the “spontaneous protest” gone wild?”
Extravagant … again. If you will recall, at the very same time, mobs in several countries were raging over the video. It was a reasonable assumption, which had to be revised once the scope of the Benghazi attack was known … and that took awhile.
“Obama wanted cover for the fact that terrorist have been strengthened and terror attacks are on the rise under his watch.”
1) This is not a police state, and poor Mr. Obama has no control over what sort of inflammatory horsepucky is loosed on the internet. 2) And you can’t get me to agree that one attack, in a place like Libya, constitutes “on the rise.” Sorry.
Jack: “Then Ms. Crowley inserted herself into this testy exchange and she did the inexecusable…she corrected Romney and said she recalled that he did call it an act of terror.”
You mean she *gasp* fact-checked something? Why, that’s almost like…real journalism!
Come on, Jack. Of course Obama called it a terrorist attack. He was clearly referring to the attack in Benghazi when he used the term “terrorist attack,” otherwise his speech wouldn’t even make sense. You’re just splitting hairs at this point, and it looks desparate.
Tina: “The Community Reinvestment Act was expanded under Bill Clinton and throughout the Bush years created a growing cancer in lending and securities that became a bubble and crashed in the midst of a slight recession that began in 2007 and ended in 2009.”
Off-topic, but I just cannot point out enough how inaccurate this is. As I’ve shown you numerous times, CRA loans were actually much less likely to default than non-CRA loans. This is just a fact. It makes absolutely no sense to blame the CRA for the crash, when most of the loans responsible were not subject to the CRA.
Re: And you, Pie, get the “Most Like Violentacrez Award” on this site.
Nonsense. That award goes to you and Chris, dear Libbya. You are just angry because I so accurately point out your ineptitude, crass moronic comments and conclusions, as well as your lies, and lunacy. But hey, that is just you. I have your number. If you wish to continue making a fool of yourself I have no problem with that. In fact, I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself. You are an excellent example of the progressive mind (less)set.
Keep up the good work.
HA! No need to add Chris to the list of liars scum that Candy Crowley occupies. He long ago earned that distinction.
Thank you pal. Yes, that money (70M) could have done a lot of good in America, if it was spent right. Can you imagine how that could have changed lives in some of our schools? And we pissed it away on a stupid ad campaign…kinda makes me ill.
Well, thanks Libby, kind of you to say that. Unfortunately, I have lost many friends and family already, so many of them died before their time and now at our age it really starts.
Regarding our shape-shifter type politicians… I think the system makes them like that, they often times couldn’t get elected otherwise. There are very few that have ever stayed 100% true to their values, and didn’t flip flop to accommodate a broader voter base. It’s not right, but it’s the way things are. -Jack
By the way, I disagree that the debate was a setback for Romney, he did fail to jump on liar Obama and his surrogate liar Candy Crowley on the Benghazi attack.
Wow! I agree with Chris for the first time ever!
“You mean she *gasp* fact-checked something? Why, that’s almost like…real journalism!”
Candy Crowley did egregiously violate her role as moderator and decided to engage in her deepest and most profound calling — what passes for journalism these days. She came to Obama’s rescue and lied. She is a surrogate “reporter” for the administration.
Yes, Chris, that is real journalism. It is the quintessential reality of journalism, a paradigm of the LSM. It is what your progressive scum professors teach you what is journalism and debate moderation.
Chris, you should become a journalist and a Democrat scum debate monitor. You are a natural.
I am saddened that Romney was too civil and not call out Crowley and Obama on this bald faced lie, but I do not think the debate was a setback, it just could have been better.
OBAMA STILL IN DENIAL
Despite numerous public events including a speech at the United Nations and two presidential debates, President Obama still hasnt publicly and plainly acknowledged to Americans that terrorists killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya on Sept. 11.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/review-obama-hasnt-implicitly-acknowledged-terrori/
Pie, I’ve been so focused on the Rose Garden statement I completely overlooked his more recent comments, or rather the absence thereof on Benghazi… and Obama still hasn’t come out and said it was a premeditated terrorist attack by Al Qaeda? Wow….
“She came to Obama’s rescue and lied. She is a surrogate “reporter” for the administration. Yes, Chris, that is real journalism. It is the quintessential reality of journalism, a paradigm of the LSM. It is what your progressive scum professors teach you what is journalism and debate moderation. Chris, you should become a journalist and a Democrat scum debate monitor. You are a natural. I am saddened that Romney was too civil and not call out Crowley and Obama on this bald faced lie, but I do not think the debate was a setback, it just could have been better.”
Ditto… -Jack
But Pie, I don’t loose torrents of personal abuse (e.g., “ineptitude, crass moronic comments and conclusions, as well as your lies, and lunacy”) … you do.
Until you learn to compose a paragraph without doing that … you’re it.
Chris: ” I just cannot point out enough how inaccurate this is. As I’ve shown you numerous times, CRA loans were actually much less likely to default than non-CRA loans. This is just a fact. It makes absolutely no sense to blame the CRA for the crash, when most of the loans responsible were not subject to the CRA.”
Chris subprime loans poisoned the securities pool. Lax regulation led to lowered qualification standards and practices to meet the demands of the regulations.The use of ARM loans was one way to meet the standard. These relaxed regulations (CRA) created rising percentages of subprime loans being made. What is a subprime loan:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/07/subprime-mortgage.asp
Banks and lenders were forced to make more of these types of loans after CRA was expanded under Bill Clinton late in his presidency. George Bush warned that this was bad and something needed to be done…his efforts to propose changes were scoffed at by democrats in Congress throughout his presidency!
What happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
To pretend that the regulation (CRA) that created inferior lending practices and more SUBPRIME mortgages was not at the heart of the housing bubble and financial meltdown is to be blindly ignorant or, in the case of the spinners, absolutely bereft of integrity in speaking truthfully about the crisis.
Democrats complain that regulations are not tough enough to protect the people. This regulation destroyed the wealth of all Americans when you consider the immediate loss due to the crash (worldwide) and then add to that the non-recovery under a democrat president and congress. More people in poverty…millions out of work or working part time and low paying jobs to get by. It is time for democrats to take responsibility for the fact that regulations designed to socially engineer improved lives is a DUMB idea that leads to disaster!
Please do not attempt to insult me again by taking that professorial tone to upbraid me regarding this issue.
RE Libbya’s Complaint.
Libby, your contributions here are typically snide and inaccurate. You consistently engage in crass attacks on the blog owners with moronic pestering complaints which, when they are not outright lies, are half truths or at best twisted to fit your weird personal reality.
Just as soon as you stop making up your own idiotic facts to conjure up your never ending barrage of asinine snippy remarks (like your recent absurd claim the WSJ “withheld” a story about Hillary), then maybe I’ll stop getting in your face about your ineptitude, crass moronic comments and conclusions, as well as your lies, and lunacy.
I’ll make a deal with you Libbya — Stop acting like a moron and I’ll stop treating you like one. If you act like crass moron, how do you expect people to respond? With hugs and kisses?
Clean your own house dearie before you go bitching about mine.
Four paragraphs of personal abuse! Pie, you’re not even trying … and you’re still it.
Tina, I genuinely don’t understand your argument. How could the CRA be the cause of the suprime loan crisis, when most of the lenders of subprime loans were not beholden to the CRA?
From the Prospect:
“In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law’s toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified — at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.
Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn’t even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan’s Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the “tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, “has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.”
http://prospect.org/article/did-liberals-cause-sub-prime-crisis
Jack, it’s obvious that Obama was referring to the Beghazi attacks when he used the phrase “acts of terror.” Sniping because he didn’t directly say “this was an act of terror” comes across as desperate semantic game-playing. It doesn’t make you look good. I do think Obama deserves a lot of criticism for how this incident was handled, but this particular nitpick is just ridiculous.
Tina, John Carney’s article is actually pretty interesting. I am glad to see him adress the fact that CRA loans were less likely to defalt than non-CRA loans; this is the first time I’ve seen an anti-CRA analyst try to explain this.
However, I find his conclusions convoluted and ultimately unconvincing. His case includes so many qualifiers that it reduces the argument to practically nothing. For example, he writes:
“So how and why did the CRA lax lending spread to the rest of the mortgage market?
The structure of the CRA regulations encouraged the spread. Banks that were the best at making CRA loans were allowed to grow by making acquisitions and opening new branches. This created a kind of political-financial Darwinism that reward the biggest enthusiasts for lax CRA lending standards. Of course, the most successful people under this regime were not the types who needed their arms twisted to make loose loans. They were who were predisposed to engage in loosey-goosey finance, who discovered that the CRA had made the world their oyster.”
Carney’s argument seems quite different from the other anti-CRA arguments you have presented, Tina. Here, he is saying that the CRA didn’t force lenders to make bad loans; rather, that doing so provided certain financial advantages, and that banks chose to make these loans in pursuit of profit. That’s sort of a hybrid of the left and right’s positions on this issue; he acknowledges the profit motive involved in making risky loans, and for that I have to give him kudos.
But what he fails to explain is why CRA loans did so much better than non-CRA loans. He addresses this question, but doesn’t really answer it, writing:
“This is true. But it is largely beside the point. A huge driver of the demand for subprime loans was the demand for CRA bonds. Banks operating under the CRA could meet their obligations by buying up CRA loans or MBS built from CRA loans. The CRA created a demand that the mortgage servicers were meeting.
What’s more, many smaller mortage service companies hoped to be acquired by larger banks. Increasing their CRA lending made them more attractive take-over targets.
A study put out by the Treasury Department in 2000 found that the CRA was encouraging the mortgage servicers to provide loans to low-income borrowers, in part because the CRA loans had been so successful.
Finally, the Clinton adminstration threatened to subject the mortgage companies to the CRA if they didn’t comply voluntarily. They promptly agreed to increase their CRA-type lending in order to escape the kind of public scrutiny that comes with official CRA regulated status.”
What I don’t understand is, how is this the fault of the CRA, and not the lenders who voluntarily chose to make “CRA-type lending?” If *actual* CRA loans were doing better, than wouldn’t one have to conclude that the lenders who were making “CRA-type” loans were doing something wrong in the way they went about it, and that the CRA itself was not actually the problem?
Carney says his analysis isn’t driven by partisan concerns, and I admit it is a bit more rational than other arguments I’ve heard from conservatives. Yet at its best, it seems that all he proves is that, if you squint really hard, you might be able to construct a somewhat plausible theory that the CRA had some indirect effect on the mortgage crisis. It’s hardly a strong case.
Chris: “However, I find his conclusions convoluted and ultimately unconvincing. His case includes so many qualifiers that it reduces the argument to practically nothing.”
Give yourself a few years. This is not book learning it is the real world we are talking about.
The law (regulation) creates mandates and incentives. Both move people to make decisions. One person making one decisions (within the law remember) doesn’t do any harm. But many people, over many years, making decisions based on these incentives and mandates created the bubble, the toxicity in the market, and the eventual crash and collapse.
There were voices of warning and they were ignored.
The opportunity to make money is a powerful incentive. The opportunity to help people is a powerful motivator. The CRA created both and although it may not have been intended, created the perfect storm.
This is why our regulations must be simple, clear and designed to protect the overall health and safety of the industry…lenders, banks, investors, debt holders, homeowners….EVERYONE. They should not be made into tools of social engineering. As we can see the regulations of the CRA inspired and allowed wide spread risky lending which created greater demand not just by those seeking a home but by investor buyers. Nobody worried because these loans were being bundled and securitized by government backed, Fannie and Freddie…how could anyone lose?
“Here, he is saying that the CRA didn’t force lenders to make bad loans; rather, that doing so provided certain financial advantages, and that banks chose to make these loans in pursuit of profit.”
The CRA did both. It WAS written to force lenders to make loans to people who were not qualified buyers by normal lending standards (by setting goals banks had to meet banks were forced to become creative). But these were STUPID rules because they also created a big buyers market. People like Jamie Gorelick at Fannie Mae announced to the world they wanted to by those bundled risky loans! She encouraged wide spread risky lending. Just as you wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to take advantage of a Pell Grant, these investors and buyers grabbed an opportunity to take advantage of the easy lending (with low interest rates to boot).
“…how is this the fault of the CRA, and not the lenders who voluntarily chose to make “CRA-type lending?”
I have never tried to claim that banks and lenders didn’t contribute to the mess. But Chris…the law is what sets the standards. None of this would have been possible if the normal standards for lending had remained in tact.
George Bush came out immediately and said there was plenty of responsibility to go around in this mess and he was right. Regulators were definitely not doing their jobs. Certain players, countrywide for instance, were purposely working as bad actors for every dime with no thought to the ultimate consequences. But the CRA legislation is at the root of all of it and the politics involved make that root a very smelly thing indeed when you consider where it led and the people involved who made a lot of money and knew what they were doing.
“Yet at its best, it seems that all he proves is that, if you squint really hard, you might be able to construct a somewhat plausible theory that the CRA had some indirect effect on the mortgage crisis. It’s hardly a strong case.”
Squint really hard? Please. Without the lax regulation and incentives in CRA none of this would have happened!
I have to conclude that you…and the left in general…just won’t take responsibility for anything.
This is a big problem because thinking, planning and behavior cannot be corrected until we take responsibility and own the problem. Amazingly what people are left with when they refuse to identify and own the problem is a process of manipulation, lying, attempting to control, and evasion.