Simonjester wrote:
“The personal security detail for the ambassador notified the communications room in Tripoli, who then, on the top secret side, sent a message to the White House situation room that the ambassador was in peril,”? the caller said. “They did that by code word and it would have been within minutes of the attack commencing.”? “The White House situation room has a list of what’s called essential elements and friendly information…certain things go right to the person that is standing next to the president, both military and civilian leadership. So he would have known within minutes, or is supposed to be informed within minutes, because an ambassador is a four-star equivalent; a very high, very important person.”?
The retired Lt. Colonel says the White House “can not deny that the president knew immediately.”?
from a rush blowhard show caller, "a retired Lt. Col. and Special Operations planner for 15 years" if its true it is pretty damning! the other headline
"CIA Operators Told to ‘Stand Down’ During Attack As 3 Urgent Requests for Military Back-Up Were Denied" even more so.... if it is true it may or may not influence the election, my suspicion is that the implications wont penetrate the minds of supporters in time to make a difference (if at all) and blame will likely be shifted if it looks like it will have an effect..
in other news... the frankenstorm is keeping most of this off the front page so the only sources reporting it are rabidly right wing.. (so grain of salt)
From all I've heard about Benghazigate and the lack of adequate protection for the consulate despite known terrorist threats, as well as the unfolding facts about how the Administration decided not to send assets to try to save them while the event was ongoing, I can see a final week series of advertisements featuring outraged family members of those who died there. I've heard at least one of the mothers and one of the fathers of those who died there already speak out about the failings and lies of Obama and this administration with respect to their children. An add by Romney on this subject featuring them, in my opinion, would be the knockout punch that Obama could not recover from.
It's possible that such a strategy could help him get elected.
As H.L. Mencken said: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
You might add "or lost an election" to the quote above.
I kind of doubt that Romney would do something like that. Now George H.W. Bush in 1988 with Lee Atwater managing the campaign: you bet they would do it. I don't recall a campaign since then, however, that was quite that willing to do anything to win.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Obama's pretty teflonized about anything else. However the messiah showing his real self, that is something else again.
Yep. I think that first debate performance was a colossal blunder for Obama, and it was entirely preventable (it's not like he's not a good speaker or debater). I really don't know what happened, other than Obama hadn't been in a debate setting since 2008.
It's going to be a close election. Romney has really done a great job of closing the gap in the last month or so.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
MediumTex wrote:
I really don't know what happened,
Hubris.
You can't run for office without a "healthy sized" ego, but this guy is not like other politicians. Read first hand reports of people who have worked with him. He disdains people (not a commonn trait for a politician). Romney likes to surrond himself with the smartest people he can i.e. smarter than him. Obama thinks he is smarter than anyone around him.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
I seriously doubt that Romney will use the family, etc. Why would he. The news cycle is already covering it and the American people don't need to see ads in order to demand answers.
As to MT's HL Mencken quote, I would argue that is why Obama was elected in the first place....
clacy wrote:
As to MT's HL Mencken quote, I would argue that is why Obama was elected in the first place....
To be fair, I think that it was why most Presidents going back to at least LBJ in 1964 were elected. Carter in '76, Reagan in '84, and Clinton in '96 might have been exceptions.
The one who got screwed in 2008 was really Hillary Clinton. She probably should have been the nominee (not that she is without baggage as well, but she had done everything one would have thought necessary to secure the nomination).
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Huge grain of salt, and huge distraction. Let's focus on the real issue here - has supply side economics ever brought long term economic prosperity? I'd really like to know.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines. Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
Reub wrote:
Has trickle down government been successful?
Trickle down government is a sound-bite. Trickle down economics has actually been tried since the 1980s with Reagan. I'd like specific examples of it's success, please.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines. Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
We're talking past one another in some of these discussions.
I know that there are fans of each candidate here, but I don't want to try to moderate political arguments that don't cover any new ground and in which no one's mind is really open to being changed.
The election is not going to be won or lost because someone didn't promote his candidate strongly enough in this forum.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
