A doua dezbatere Obama – Romney - În Linie Dreaptă

CELE MAI CITITE

Adrian Papahagi: AUR e ultima răbufnire a vechii Securități, nedesprinsă din sfera KGB. E aripa radicală a PSD

Adrian Zuckerman: Numai cei curajoși vor putea face o Românie mai bună

Claudiu Târziu, numărul doi în AUR, are de asemenea interdicție de intrare în Ucraina

17 October 2012

Alegeri SUA 2012Barack ObamaMitt Romney

Prima dezbatere a fost un fiasco pentru Obama. Spuneam atunci că se estima o audienţă tv undeva între 50-60 milioane de telespectatori americani. Numărul a fost mai mare, aproape 70 de milioane, şi a stabilit un record pentru ultimele trei decenii de dezbateri prezidenţiale. Şocul a fost cu atât mai mare cu cât publicul, în loc să îl vadă pe Romney drept plutocratul care suge sângele clasei muncitoare şi devalizează clasa de mijloc a văzut un Romney combativ şi corect în diagnostic şi soluţii, faţă de un Obama oscilând între resemnare sastisită şi verbiaj neconvingător. S-a relevat exact inversul a ceea ce campania Obama a încercat să impună în conştiinţa publicului pe parcursul acestui an: conducătorul Romney şi caricatura Obama.

Efectul s-a concretizat într-o revenire substanţială şi constantă a lui Romney în sondajele de opinie, o revenire care indică un sprint final susţinut, nu doar o zvâcnire efemeră. Nu mai sunt decât trei săptămîni pînă la linia de sosire şi de aceea dezbaterea din această seară este importantă. Obama va încerca din răsputeri să îl prindă din urmă pe Romney şi să recâştige avantajul cinetic pe care l-a deţinut pînă nu demult. Romney ştie că o prestaţie de natură să întărească impresia lăsată în urmă cu două săptămîni este suficientă pentru a confirma decisiv, pentru milioane de alegători şovăielnici, faptul că există o alternativă clară şi opusă la declinul american început în 2008 şi pe care actualul preşedinte îl poate continua pînă în 2016.

Pataphyl

Cifrele sondajelor vorbesc de la sine și personal cred că nu sînt legate doar de execrabilele prestații ale clownilor Obama & Biden în primele două dezbateri, ci de faptul că “majoritatea tăcută” s-a săturat pur și simplu de cei doi și acoliții lor.

State precum Pennsylvania, Michigan au ajuns în prezent în categoria “toss up” după ce luni de-a rîndul Obama avea un avans aparent irrecuperabil de 10 sau mai multe procente. La fel Iowa, unde în prezent e egalitate.
S-a ajuns ca pînă și Gallup să dea azi publicității un sondaj care arată ticketul Romney – Ryan conducînd cu 4%
În legătură cu sondajele deja efectuate, trebuie observat că foarte multe sînt partizane prin binecunoscutul artificiu “tehnic” al selectării disproporționate a repondenților: de exemplu cu 5-10% mai mulți Democrați în eșantion decît arată statisticile oficiale ale votanților înregistrați, cu 10-15% mai puțini Independenți (în condițiile în care tandemul Republican beneficiază de o creștere masivă a intențiilor de vot în interiorul acestei categorii) etc. O excelentă analiză a acestui fenomen, însoțită de o corectare adecvată a respectivelor sondaje, care dezvăluie o situație mult mai dramatică pentru Obama decît cea prezentată în mass media, se poate găsi pe site-ul UnskewedPolls.com.

EB

Here we go! Începe în cinci minute! Revenim pe parcus şi după…

Tonight’s debate was a tense clash between incumbent President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney. The theme of the night was obvious: Mitt Romney answered the questions. Barack Obama did not. But he was flinging his fists so wildly about that he was able distract from his failure to answer those questions.

The high point for Mitt Romney early in the debate was clearly an exchange on oil prices. Romney hit Obama with his cuts to oil drilling licenses and failure to greenlight the Keystone pipeline. Obama insisted Romney was lying – and Romney answered that the proof was high gas prices. Obama responded by oddly stating that low gas prices somehow caused the recession. Seriously.

The beatdown went back and forth in this fashion for nearly an hour. The questions moderator Candy Crowley picked were clearly biased – a question about whether women were discriminated against in the workplace, a question about whether Romney was similar to President Bush, a question about gun control.

Then came the most dramatic moment of the debate. With the time imbalance dramatically in favor of President Obama – to that point in the debate, Obama had a nearly six minute advantage in time talked – Romney was asked about President Obama’s campaign promises in 2008. And he laid out a comprehensive case against Obama’s economy. President Obama, Romney said, had made many promises. But, said Romney, “we have a record to look at.”

The next big moment came when President Obama was asked about what happened in Libya. He finally said the buck stopped with him; he said he had to greet the coffins when the came home. And then he blamed Romney for politicizing the Benghazi attacks. Romney responded by pointing out that it was the culmination of the Obama failed foreign policy; he also pointed out that Obama had not called the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Which is when Candy Crowley decided to punch her Obama campaign ticket by lying: “He did call it an act of terror.” No, he didn’t. He characterized the Benghazi attacks as a spontaneous demonstration in response to a YouTube video. That is why there is a scandal. But Crowley’s paycheck was in the mail.

In the end, the debate was a rough and tumble affair. Momentum remains with Mitt Romney; Obama was not comatose. But for the truth, it would be easy to call this debate a draw. Unfortunately for Barack Obama, the truth isn’t on his side.

Battle Royale: Obama, Romney Rumble in Town Hall Debate by Ben Shapiro

Una din afirmațiile fără noimă ale lui B. Hussein Obama: Gas Prices Were Low Because Economy On Verge Of Collapse

Obama a avut o prestaţie mai bună decât data trecută, a fost mult mai combativ. Romney s-a prezentat aproape la aceeaşi parametri din prima întâlnire; a ratat totuşi o bună ocazie de a-l face KO pe Obama cu ocazia întrebării referitoare la atacul asupra consulatului din Benghazi. Ar fi putut să demonteze mult mai convingător demagogia şi falsurile din răspunsul preşedintelui. Amîndoi s-au contrat puternic, atât retoric cât şi în gesturi şi atitudine. Moderatoarea l-a ajutat crucial pe Obama la momentul Benghazi, cu o şopîrlă demnă de TVR-ul ceauşist. Unele dintre întrebările selectate pentru cei doi interlocutori au fost uşor bizare, mai reprezentative pentru interesele celei care le-a selectat (moderatoarea) decât pentru preocupările majore ale alegătorilor. Una peste alta, Obama a ieşit cu un uşor avantaj, chiar dacă şi tabăra Romney are motive de a fi mulţumită.

Obama is a supremely gifted bullshit artist. This is the only trade he knows inside out. A good measure of these skills were on display tonight. Romney made a forceful case against four more years of same old-same old, and put forward (again) a compelling contrast between America led by the “artist” and America led by an entrepreneur. Bullshit floats, but only for a while.

Înregistrarea video a dezbaterii:

Transcript: Second presidential debate

Emil Borcean

Articol anterior Ecologism și capitalism de cumetrie: 80% din banii pentru „energie verde” s-au dus la donatorii lui Obama

Articol următor Calea USL: ură și violență

11 Comments

Pataphyl
17 October 2012
Romney necruțător cu Obama: “A zburat la Las Vegas pentru a colecta bani de campanie a doua zi după atacul din Benghazi”

În clipul de 44 de secunde, Hussein clipește de 74 de ori!!!

Reply
Pataphyl
17 October 2012

Reply
Vlad P.
17 October 2012
Rush hammers beltway pundits: Obama DID NOT win the debate on points and here’s why

Reply
Silvapro
17 October 2012
Some of Obama’s big fat lies:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/18/lying-liars-and-the-lies-they-tell-in-the-white-house/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2012-10-18_171419&utm_content=24678863&utm_term=_171419_171426

Reply
Pataphyl
17 October 2012
@Silvapro

Mulțumiri pentru link, uite o listă mai completă:

Fact Check: Top Ten Worst Lies of the Second Presidential Debate

10. “I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have.” President Barack Obama has made this claim repeatedly during the campaign, but it is not true, as even the liberal Huffington Post acknowledges. The few tax cuts that Obama did enact–such as the temporary payroll tax holiday–were short-term, or conditional. Furthermore, as the Romney campaign has often pointed out, Obama has raised many taxes on the middle class, including the infamous Obamacare “penalty,” and his taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” would hit small businesess.

9. “He was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver….And he said, yes, I think that’s fair.” Obama was referring to Romney’s recent 60 Minutes interview. But the transcript reveals Obama was not telling the truth. Romney was not saying it was fair that higher income should be taxed at a lower rate. He was referring specifically to the principle that capital gains should be taxed lower than other income because it has been taxed once already–a principle, incidentally, that Obama agrees with in his own tax policy.

8. “He called the Arizona law a model for the nation.” Obama tried to knock Romney’s immigration policy while at the same time accusing him of flip-flopping on the issue. But as Romney pointed out, he was referring specifically to the e-Verify part of the law–the requirement of instant verification of workers’ legal status. That provision is even favored by unions. Obama made it seem Romney praised the law as a whole–which he had not. He went on to say that he himself objected to the provision that allowed police to check suspected illegal immigrants’ documentation–but that provision survived a challenge at the Supreme Court.

7. “I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here.” For the third debate in a row, the Democratic candidate complained that he was not receiving as much time to speak as the Republican. And for the third debate in a row, the Obama/Biden ticket actually spoke for longer–much longer–than the Romney/Ryan ticket, a testament to the ability of the incumbents to pressure the moderators, and the susceptibility of the left-leaning moderators to such pressure. Obama received a full three minutes more time in last night’s debate–and the percentage difference was even higher at one point in the proceedings.

6. “They rely on it for mammograms.” Obama attacked Romney’s proposal to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood by claiming that the organization provides mammograms to women to help prevent breast cancer. It’s been a repeated claim made by the left for months. The problem is that it’s just untrue–and even left-leaning mainstream media fact-checkers have acknowledged that. What is perhaps worse than Obama’s misleading claim about mammograms is the unsupported implication that Romney wants to deny life-saving health care to women–a cheap shot to which Romney was given no chance to respond.

5. “You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it.” We have heard the same lie for eight years from Obama. In 2004, he ran for U.S. Senate from Illinois on a promise to end such tax breaks. He did it again when he ran for President of the United States in 2008. And yet he has never done anything about it–because there are no such tax breaks. There is merely a deduction that companies can take for moving, even within the U.S.–and which helps offset the double taxation of U.S. businesses abroad, which would make American companies less competitive. Repealing it would ship jobs overseas, actually.

4. “And the production is up….What you’re saying is just not true.” Obama contested a claim by Romney that production of oil and gas is down on federal lands. He even accused Romney of not telling the truth. But Romney was right–exactly right, down to the percentage decline. Furthermore, Obama’s claim that he has been increasing oil and gas production on federal lands flies in the face of recent policy decisions, such as closing off a large part of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to further development. Obama has tried to take credit for expansion on private lands, while opposing expansion wherever possible.

3. “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?” The false premise from a member of the audience was especially egregious because her question had been selected in advance by the moderator. The supposed wage gap between men and women for the same work is largely a myth. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth pointed out: “Women make about 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, if the male counterparts are in the same job with the same experience.”

2. “He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open.” After Obama accused Romney of wanting American auto manufacturers to go bankrupt, Romney pointed out that Obama had, in fact, taken the auto companies through bankruptcy. Obama’s retort was to accuse Romney of wanting to take the companies bankrupt in order to put them out of business–a blatant lie. Romney actually suggested in his famous 2008 op-ed: “In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

1. “He did call it an act of terror.” The worst untruth told by a moderator in presidential history. Candy Crowley’s intervention in favor of Obama caused the president’s cheering section to burst into applause, in violation of the rules, and there was little that Romney could say in response. But she was wrong–Obama’s reference to “acts of terror” in his Sep. 12 statement was in a general, abstract sense, and came long after he had described the 9/11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions as demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. Even Crowley seemed to realize what she had done: it wasn’t long before she walked back her own comment.

Reply
George Daniel
17 October 2012
O veste buna. Dupa cum stim, in sistemul electoral american castigi alegerile cand ai mai multe colegii electorale, nu neaparat cand castigi la votul popular. Romney conduce acum, la o diferenta mica ce-i drept. E un avantaj mic, as spune ca mai degraba ne aflam in marja de eroare, cand institutiile de sondare ar da la inchiderea votului 50-50%, pentru ca se afla in marja. E totusi imbucurator, Romney vine tare din urma. Ultima dezbatere (pe politica externa) va fi cu adevarat decisiva. Nu cred ca vreunul dintre candidati va face vreo gafa in afara dezbaterii, ambii functioneaza acum ca doua papusi teleghidate, setate sa nu spuna prostii.

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/10/18/rcp-romney-takes-lead-in-electoral-college-for-first-time/

Reply
Daniel Francesco
17 October 2012
Missouri: Romney 54%, Obama 43%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/missouri/election_2012_missouri_president
Swing State Tracking: Romney 49%, Obama 47%
Swing states “collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll
Virginia: Romney 50%, Obama 47%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/virginia/election_2012_virginia_president

CBS: Poll: Romney lead grows in daily tracking poll

In Gallup’s Daily Tracking poll out Thursday, Romney leads the president by 7 points, with Romney obtaining 52 percent support of likely voters to Mr. Obama’s 45 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57535370/poll-romney-lead-grows-in-daily-tracking-poll/

Reply
Silvapro
17 October 2012
#6 George Daniel,
Nu cred e vorba de a face sau a nu face gafe. E vorba de conceptii si policy, care totusi sint diferite. Romney are cu duiumul ce sa-i reproseze lui Obama, trebuie doar sa joace bine cartile din mina. Mai ales cu primaverile arabe, cu plecaciunea in fata lor, organizatiile islamiste care o duc bine merci, membrii din familia lui cu inclinatiile lor, Hillary Clinton si politica ei, etc.

Ceva interesant din Jerudalem Post:

Gadi Adelman debunks the ‘keep enemies closer’ myth
By Shoebat Foundation on October 18, 2012 in Blog, General

As evidence continues to mount that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S. Government, the only defense those who refuse to admit it (think John McCain and John Boehner) will have left is the one that says, ‘Keep your friends close and your enemies closer’.

Gadi Adelman does an excellent job of taking that excuse off the table.

Via the Jerusalem Post:

The quote about ‘friends and enemies’ has been attributed to Niccolò Machiavelli as well as Sun Tzu, though no published sources predate its use by “Michael Corleone” in the movie ‘The Godfather Part II’ in 1974. Quote history lesson aside it raises an important question, at what point in keeping your enemy close do they become a ‘Trojan horse’?

On October 12, the Simon Wiesenthal Center called on President Obama to publicly condemn the anti-Semitic call for Jihad against Israel by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Mohammed Badie and to order the cutoff of all contacts with the organization until the threat is withdrawn.

Don’t anyone hold their breath.

The amount of articles, material and people speaking out on the ties between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) are in the thousands. I have lectured and written on this too many times to count.

Obama demanded that the MB be present at his 2009 speech in Cairo, even though at the time the MB was an outlawed organization in Egypt. This was believed by many, including myself, to be the beginning of the end of Hosni Mubarak.

Shortly after taking office Obama selected Egyptian-Born US Muslim Dalia Mogahed as an advisor on the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Dalia Mogahed is a devout Muslim and the first woman to wear a ‘hijab’ (head scarf) to work each day in the White House.

As was reported in ‘The Tablet’ back in April 2010,

The most important person shaping the Obama Administration’s Middle East message isn’t Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Dennis Ross, Joe Biden, or Rahm Emanuel. Rather, it’s a Cairo-born mother of two named Dalia Mogahed.

Mogahed has continually defended the Islamist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which have legally proven ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. ISNA grew out of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) another MB organization. ISNA completed a $21 million headquarters in Indianapolis using funds raised in part from Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR and ISNA were both unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terror financing case in US history. As explained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism,

Exhibits from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial showed that the North American Islamic Trust, an ISNA subsidiary, paid $30,000 to senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk and his wife, along with another $30,000 to the Islamic University of Gaza, a school long known to be controlled by Hamas. Five former HLF officials were found guilty of illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas.

But the ties to the MB continue and continue much higher.

Recently reported in the Washington Post, Representative Michelle Bachmann and four other House Republicans wrote a letter asking the Department of Defense, the State Department, and other departments to investigate whether the US government is being infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood,

In particular they said that Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “has three family members—her late father, her mother, and her brother—connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position provides her with routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making.”

In his defense of Huma Abedin, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, “accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.”

After reading Adelman’s extensive list of examples, it becomes clearer that denial is what’s truly dangerous.

Reply
Pataphyl
17 October 2012
Deși efectul celei de-a doua dezbateri nu a ajuns încă să fie reflectat în sondaje, tendințele de anulare a avansului luat la un moment dat de Obama se mențin. Pe lîngă incredibilul avans de 7% avansat de Gallup (comentariul #7), trebuie să menționăm modificările lente dar sigure la nivelul statelor “swing”. Harta electorală Real Clear Politics indică pentru prima dată un avans Romney-Ryan la state “adjudecate”, iar harta “fără toss-up” de pe același site arată o diferență minimă (încă) în favoarea lui Obama (Romney are nevoie pe această hartă de un singur stat cu 9 sau mai mulți electori, fie el Ohio, Wisconsin sau Pennsylvania!

Da, am spus Pennsylvania, căci un foarte recent sondaj la nivelul statului publicat de Susquehanna Polling and Research anunță Romney 49% – Obama 45%, o răsturnare de 6 procente față de sondajul aceleiași surse de acum cîteva săptămîni. O răsturnare similară apare și în cursa pentru Senat dintre Democratul Bob Casey și Republicanul Tom Smith, care conduce acum cu 2%, după ce luni de zile era considerat cu 10-12 procente în urmă!

E foarte probabil ca noi rezultate să fie făcute publice încă înaintea dezbaterii finale Romney-Obama, de luni seara în Florida. O dezbatere care nu prea are cum să-l favorizeze pe actualul președinte, căci e consacrată exclusiv politicii externe.

Reply
Silvapro
17 October 2012
Daca inca n-ati vazut glumele lui Mitt Romney – Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were in attendance at the Al Smith Dinner and the big surprise of the night was Romney’s performance. Obama is always decent at these events and had several good self directed jabs, but Romney showed America he’s not as robotic as they might think.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/19/who-knew-romney-hilarious-in-roast-of-himself-obama-at-al-smith-dinner/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2012-10-19_171890&utm_content=24678863&utm_term=_171890_171899

Reply
Pataphyl
17 October 2012
Let me be clear: it’s not optimal!

Reply