Presidential debate #2: Romney manages to beat Obama AND moderator Crowley

Tuesday night’s 2nd Presidential debate was marked by some silly questions, and silly behavior. But after the dust settled, Romney walked away not only unscathed, but with a close & hard-fought win.

Oh, I’m sure the Obamacrats were all excited that their man Barack popped a couple 5-hour Energy drinks before he went onstage, and it’s true that he was better than his somnambulistic persona from 2 weeks ago. However, the President employed the Joe Biden “malarkey” method of debating, which means you repeatedly call your opponent a liar, facts-and-truth-be-damned. It also means that you constantly interrupt your opponent, which taken together makes it very hard for many viewers to tell what the heck is going on.

This strategy, however, doesn’t appear to be benefiting Obama. More on that at the end.


The item which we’ll be talking about for days is the “terror” question as it relates to Benghazi. The President, assisted by moderator Candy Crowley, attempted to re-write history and basically insist he had said all along that it was a terrorist attack.

Which is great and all, ….except that he didn’t.

Obama didn’t call it a terrorist attack; he was speaking in relation to 9/11/01 and used the word “terror” in general. This isn’t opinion; it’s objective fact. Is it now a matter of semantics as to whether the Obama Administration did or did not recognize the attacks as terrorism?

Heck, in his Rose Garden speech, he also used the words “Walter Reed“. Based on his previous logic, should we then assume that Obama suspected the famous Army doctor had something to do with the Libya attacks, as well?

It’s almost as if the Administration WANTS me to keep replaying this video:

(The Entire timeline for what was said, and when, can be found HERE).

There are several places to view reports on this, including (with two posts now) as well as Human Events. I suggest you give BOTH sites a peek.


I was actually flabbergasted at one point during the evening, when Obama tried to portray himself as pro-oil, -natural gas, & -coal…and then say that he is responsible for improved results in these areas! I’ll say this: Obama’s not a gifted liar in the mold of Bill Clinton, but he sure is a bold one.

“Pro-coal”? Really? You may wish to tell that to the Coal Industry; they somehow have missed that message. Of course, when your campaign maligns Ohio coal miners who attended a Romney rally as “being forced to attend by their union“, it should be pretty obvious who’s lying about being on the side of Coal in our country.


Pro-OIL? Puh-leeeeaase…. I have two words for that laughable statement: KEYSTONE PIPELINE.

President “Yay, Oil!” Obama has been busy in other ways, too:

“The Obama administration also announced recently it would lock up nearly half of the 23 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska from energy production and instead set it aside for wildlife and species protection.”

And this from’s Erika Johnsen:

Obama tries to hit back on Romney’s accurate observations — “Very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration” — but again, Obama ignores the facts about the rates of leasing and permitting that disqualify his claims, and Romney doesn’t let him get away with it. (Also, Obama’s “use-it-or-lose-it,” “you can’t just choose to drill when it’s profitable for you” policy argument, demonstrates a devastatingly pathetic lack of understanding about the way the markets work to everyone’s best advantage.)

Maybe I’m just slow, but none of this strikes me as “pro-oil”.


As always, we have the full debate video for you here:


The bottom line from last night was that Obama spoke to his diminishing base of cultists followers, and they probably put up new posters of him on their wall. However, those folks are in the tank regardless what he does. Rather than building any sort of “O-mentum” from Tuesday among the electorate-at-large, Obama was slammed with the news that he’d lost the debate as measured by both CNN and CBS. Even the MSNBC focus group called it a tie.

And when your opponent’s trajectory is going up, and yours is going down, that means advantage: Romney.

Armed with that knowledge, faced with the inevitable discussions of Libya/”terror-or-not-terror”, and talks of dead ambassadors, one thing is certain: this is going to make a very tough week for the sitting president.


13 responses to “Presidential debate #2: Romney manages to beat Obama AND moderator Crowley

  1. What? “Thats not true” is not a complete rebuttal to any point?

  2. All things considered, anything close to a tie isn’t bad for the president, since this was in effect his first debate of the season, whereas Romney already had one under his belt going into this debate. That should also justify his assistance from Crowley, and Michelle’s cheering him on from the stands.

    If we can overlook minor details like blatant lies, coverups, and the like, from the Obama tag-team, Yes, I’ll concede it was a draw. Congratulations to the president for all the hard work he and his team put into their performance last night in order to achieve that.

    • JAMES!! Bringing the INDUSTRIAL-level snark to the party!!
      Way to go, brotha!

      As much as anything, this reminded me of an old “Law & Order” episode, where the defense attorney and the judge team-up on Stone to get a defendant off the hook. Afterwards, Stone starts looking at the judge (because his assistance to the defense was so blatant), and finds that he accepted a bribe.

      I don’t know if Crowley is merely a like-minded ‘statist’ with Obama, or if she was paid for her troubles, …and I don’t care.
      Regardless of why it happened, I saw Obama lie repeatedly about objective facts, and then get several assists from the moderator, at one point shouting down Romney with a “fact” which was 100% wrong by her own admission following the debate.

      Someone would have to avert their own eyes to avoid acknowledging that.

      I think this hurts Obama, no question. If anyone is truly undecided, they were not pleased by that spectacle.

      • I hate to be so skeptical, I really do. But I just have to ask, with no offense to anyone, if there are any undecideds still out there, are they really daft enough to catch all that? I have my serious doubts. That’s one of the things that worries me the most in this elections: “undecided voters.” Because if they haven’t caught on by now, what makes us think they ever will?

        • livinrightinpgh

          This has been a contention of mine for the last 4 elections, where ALL OF A SUDDEN, the MSM pays homage to a group of folks who “haven’t figured it out yet……”

        • There indeed has to be a pretty high level of “teh stupid” to still be undecided at this point.
          However, Obama is becoming increasingly shrill, defensive and rather whiny: not an attractive combination.

          We’ll always have a small contingency of people who want the information distilled down to the level of a Dick-&-Jane book. For lack of a better word, they’re useless.
          We need to save the ones who are savable, make a sincere offer to assist the others, and inspire the ones who are predisposed to the truth.

          Obama is self-destructing, and last night wasn’t helpful to him.
          At all.

          Just my opinion, of course.

  3. livinrightinpgh

    I waited all night for the big Zero to tell me WHAT he was going to do, specifically, with the next 4 years should he be re-elected. What I got was more of the (yawn……) “Mitt Romney wants to steal women’s ovaries and stone granny to death with them”…

    Two points:

    First, MSM, listen up: Please don’t try to give Obama a “victory” on Benghazi when 4 Americans died because of HIS ineptness. The fact that Romney didn’t pounce on the whole “Obama/Crowley tag team match” doesn’t mean that the audience (TV and in person) didn’t get it.

    Second, I’m sick of the “war on women” rhetoric spewed by Obama and his ilk. Ladies: please read Anita Dunn’s OWN EXPERIENCE in the White House as chronicled in the Washington Post AND Time Magazine. Why do you think she LEFT? Those are the facts in evidence, and they are NOT disputed. The charges against Romney are so vacant that they have to cling to the use of the word “binder”? REALLY?

    Romney/Ryan – 3. Obama/Biden – negative 2. (Obama lost AGAIN last night but, out of kindness, and a sense of welfare for all, I declined to take another point away from him.)

  4. Obama will “answer” the question sometime AFTER Nov. 8.
    (I’m sure it’ll be Bush’s fault)

  5. Pingback: Benghazi: WHAT did the President know, and WHEN did he know it? | Two Heads are Better Than One

  6. Pingback: Election 2012: The DIVIDED States of America | Two Heads are Better Than One

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s