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).
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 HotAir.com’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.