2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[SoFarSoGood]

When you are speaking at the press conference called specifically to address an attack in Benghazi, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together and logically presume that he had the events in Benghazi in mind. He wasn't speaking at the World's Forum Against Terrorism.

Ok so if I say "I like eating fish" I am specificaly referring to the fish I ate yesterday? Not the one that made me ill two weeks ago? Clearly not: I am using a generalism and that is what Obama did. The point is that no matter when Obama said these words he did NOT say that the Benghazi attack itself was 'terror attack'. The moderator was wrong and perhaps Obama should learn to express himself better if that is what he meant because it is NOT what he said.

[Strike For The South]

I've never agreed with you more. This is exactly my thought process on the issue. You must be doing something wrong.

This is the kind of stuff that causes Democrats to call us liars more often than we are overtly lying about things.

I'm not even upset that Obama framed it the way he did, it is to be expected.

Crawley lost her cool and had a fantasy moment where she is some white knight fact checker when that is not her job

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This whole Bengazi thing is a text book case of Republicans politicizing a tragedy in order to paint the opposition as weak.

Pretty tired of it.

It's a political tragedy. A terrorist attack on a consulate, 4 americans killed. It doesn't make sense to talk about "politicizing" it. The NRA accuses left wing people of politicizing a tragedy every time there's a shooting, sometimes they have a good point but it's not the get-out-of-jail-free card they want it to be.

What you want to accuse them of is exploiting the tragedy. But you'd be hard pressed to make that case, and most of what the administration is being criticized for they brought on themselves by their response to the attack--and with their foreign policy of the previous four years. That was the substance of Romney's comment in the debate.

Wow. Only in this weird ultra conservative universe would calling someone out on a bold faced politically motivated lie be considered heinous.

Leaving aside the "bold faced politically motivated lie" part, most people from all sides would still say that if she was going to do it, she should have done it consistently and called out Obama's lies. "This is the guy who said let Detroit go bankrupt" what would the fact check on that have been? "Actually Mr. President, Detroit did go bankrupt, you seem to be confused"?

To believe that it would be good for the moderators to fact check you would have to be one of those people who has faith in the competence of journalists and the fact checkers in general. But it's obvious how misplaced that would be. At another point Obama said that Romney had called the Arizona immigration law "a model for the nation". Crowley could have fact checked him (as Romney did) and pointed to the transcript where Romney singles out the E-verify. But that would have been a stupid intervention because as far as I know Romney is not really against the other parts of the law. It's not really a bad comment from Obama--nothing like as idiotic, deceptive, and patronizing as the detroit bankruptcy comment. But the fact check bloggers have shown themselves incompetent at understanding that kind of thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not even upset that Obama framed it the way he did, it is to be expected.

Crawley lost her cool and had a fantasy moment where she is some white knight fact checker when that is not her job

I'm not upset about it either - but it is a divergence from an American black/white understandign of foreign policy and needed to be exploited as an actual difference. The Obama administration is reluctant to call acts of terrorism terrorism (generally) and a Republican administration would take the opposite approach. Plusses and minuses to both, but to suggest that there is no difference would be to suggest that the administration's policy of nuance is no different than the Bush admins policy of "with us or you're terrorists". Clearly there is a difference, hence the point that Mitt Romney was attempting to make, until cut off by Cameron Mannheim Steamroller 2.0.

Again, I agree with you on your observation.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'll concede all of that. Obama is no saint (i am specifically still pissed that he did not veto the NDAA), and lack of fact checking in general means these debates are worthless.

Ideally, i would want the moderator to step in every time there is a lie, a sly misdirect to avoid answering a question, or even when they keep repeating the same half true talking points over and over.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, lack of accountability and honesty is the problem. It has to stop for these debates to be anything other than a joke.

The debates are not worthless. They forced Romney's hand to introduce his "floating basket deductions cap" which accounts for approx 32% of the revenue in his tax plan. It is genius because it preserves the credits that voting Americans like while actually closing deductions for the upper class. This is a development and he is called to task in a way that a one way TV ad isn't going to do. I love the idea. I like that politicians are dishonest, but it is more important that there be transparency available to immediately call them on BS. People seeking anything will be dishonest. I don't need my political leaders to be honest or ethical men - I just need to catch them and ruin them if they screw me. To attempt to elect people who are not going to BS you and take advantage of your trust is naive. People are people and we elect them because we are too busy, ugly, corrupt, and/or irritating to run for office ourselves. They aren't running for Jesus, just trying to keep people working and avoid nuclear war. We also hire them to keep the high road while cheating our competitors, so honesty isnt the way to get that done.

Deception is key to governing masses of minimally intelligent animals. As people become more intelligent their leaders do too. Try talking sense to a burning theater full of people. try to keep them moving out of the theater in an orderly fashion after telling them the truth.

[a completely inoffensive name]

With all due respect, that's a load of crap. If your are okay with your leaders not respecting you enough to be honest and down to earth, then you deserve the figuritive anal violation they're going to give you in return.

Why not just come out and admit you want an authoritarian regime? Maybe some Oligarchy of pre-approved millionaires from the Fox News top 100 Douchebags list? If we aren't going to DEMAND more honesty and DEMAND more transparency and DEMAND Democratic progress then we should just give up any pretense of being an enlightened society and go back to killing eachother for whichever asshole happens to own the piece of land we're serfing on.

Obviously we can never achieve the perfect, so we must never strive for the good.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Was that sarcasm? I think it was, but I'm notoriously bad at discerning it over the web.

But if it was, then I think you get it. Just because people are flawed creatures doesn't mean we can't try and be better. If we don't demand moral behaviour from the people we are electing to LEAD US, then we are an immoral society and not worth the effort. It is that simple.

I was indeed being sarcastic. Only by raising standards can we raise the aggregate performance. The failure of the public began with the failure of the people's institutions. The anger and rebellion of the 1960s policies was followed by the removal of faith in public institutions in the 1970s. The evangelical revival in the early 1980s then followed by gay scandals and general hedonism by some of its most prominent members. As the public grew tired of seeing failure, the 4th estate slowly dismantled its integrity for higher ratings.

I have been having a massive head cold that has me incapacitated in bed all day, so this is likely delirious, but by catering to base rhetorical arguments because it is "foolish" for modern society to provide real services that compliments or dissembles the message of politicians you are merely accelerating the end goal of having the public eventually distrust itself and stupidly reside its power in the hands of the few or the one.

[SoFarSoGood]

Ideally, i would want the moderator to step in every time there is a lie

If you want moderators to check facts; fine. If you don't want them to; again fine. The point is that if they are going check facts they have to be impartial and more importantly right. The Lady was wrong.

[gaelic cowboy]

If you want moderators to check facts; fine. If you don't want them to; again fine. The point is that if they are going check facts they have to be impartial and more importantly right. The Lady was wrong.

unfortunately for Mr Romney that doesn't mean by extension that he is right.

[Tuuvi]

Deception is key to governing masses of minimally intelligent animals. As people become more intelligent their leaders do too. Try talking sense to a burning theater full of people. try to keep them moving out of the theater in an orderly fashion after telling them the truth.

Bleh I think the belief that the average voter is stupid and needs to be lied to or have his/her voting rights taken away is a tad bit self-righteous. Aren't most of us average voters? What makes us so special? The funny thing is most people that you talk to about politics seem to think they're smarter than everyone else and only they should be the ones voting.

[Xiahou]

Ideally, i would want the moderator to step in every time there is a lie, a sly misdirect to avoid answering a question, or even when they keep repeating the same half true talking points over and over.

Fair, real-time fact checking would be quite impossible. If a moderator is to be a more active participant, they should press candidates on dodges and non-answers. Save the fact checking for afterwards.

However, even pressing the candidates on anything leaves the door open for personal biases to come in. I think we're smart enough to know when someone doesn't want to answer the question. Moderators best serve us when they facilitate discussion and then fade into the background.

[Centurion1]

Wow. Only in this weird ultra conservative universe would calling someone out on a bold faced politically motivated lie be considered heinous.

Ultra cOnservative not really. I dot even dislike Obama. But it doesn't change the fact that moderators job isn't to fact check candidates it's to moderate. And I wouldn't call it a bold faced lie my brother..... It's still debatable either way.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The real question is why is it the moderators job to not fact check?

[Centurion1]

The real question is why is it the moderators job to not fact check?

I apologize in advance if this isn't clear ill fix tomorrow! I think it's fine if a moderators job is to fact check but let's decide ahead of time. And let's do it for both sides because Obama wasn't completely honest so why didn't she correct him it seems a bit unfair.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The real question is why is it the moderators job to not fact check?

Because they're the moderator. It's a debate. The candidates "fact check" each other. If it was an interview, then the interviewer would ask questions and such.

[Greyblades]

Also they're politicians, if they pointed out and corrected every lie and untruth it would take days.

[Greyblades]

Better?

Maybe.

Patient enough?

Nope.

[ICantSpellDawg]

With all due respect, that's a load of crap. If your are okay with your leaders not respecting you enough to be honest and down to earth, then you deserve the figuritive anal violation they're going to give you in return.

Why not just come out and admit you want an authoritarian regime? Maybe some Oligarchy of pre-approved millionaires from the Fox News top 100 Douchebags list? If we aren't going to DEMAND more honesty and DEMAND more transparency and DEMAND Democratic progress then we should just give up any pretense of being an enlightened society and go back to killing eachother for whichever asshole happens to own the piece of land we're serfing on.

I challenge you to find one person who will not become corrupt to some extent almost immediately upon gaining power. This is how the human animal operates and we need to accept this reality. On the flip side, we also need to make sure that they don't get away with it and cycle them. I view people in power like water. We need it, but we need to cycle and filter it so that it doesn't get stagnant. Get lazy or stop paying attention and you'll contract some horrible water-born disease.

Keep telling yourself that your candidate doesn't lie to you or mislead you. That's the bunch of crap.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I apologize in advance if this isn't clear ill fix tomorrow! I think it's fine if a moderators job is to fact check but let's decide ahead of time. And let's do it for both sides because Obama wasn't completely honest so why didn't she correct him it seems a bit unfair.

Some of the GOP primary debates had multiple moderators. Why not have a diversity of fact checkers?

Because they're the moderator. It's a debate. The candidates "fact check" each other. If it was an interview, then the interviewer would ask questions and such.

It seems obvious that candidates do not fact check each other in any way. Anything that candidates say in the heat of a debate has no real authority to it either way, what reason do you have to believe that the numbers Obama brings up are more legitimate than Romney's?

[Major Robert Dump]

The Heavy Hitters coming out of Obama. LOL

http://www.rgj.com/article/20121020/...ter-stage-Reno

[Strike For The South]

The real question is why is it the moderators job to not fact check?

Look up the definition of moderator.

Beyond that she didn't fact check. I should never have used that term. She was deliberately deceptive and portrayed Romney as a liar when his comment was completely defensible and no where near the most egregious "stretch" of the night.

She also only interjected that one time, this gives her comment allot of weight as the viewer thinks the comment must have been way out of line for the moderator to interject.

This, followed by the absolute disgusting rank closing of the media reminds me why I hate every journialism major I ever met.

[Strike For The South]

Also, the debate is not meant for an education on the issues

As a voter, you are supposed to know the issues. The debate is for you to decide which candidates solution most squares with you. Candidates can lie their asses off and you need to be able to recognize that. It is your responsibility.

The laziness of the electorate has made debates into nothing more than abstract stump speeches that get interrupted.

It is your job to educate you

[Strike For The South]

The Heavy Hitters coming out of Obama. LOL

http://www.rgj.com/article/20121020/...ter-stage-Reno

I love 30 year old part time students/part time social advocates.

Easily the most brain dead people in the country, that grand total of 20 books you read for your university degree does not make you enlightend, it makes you a fanatic who worships at a different altar minus the drunken holidays

get a job, hippy

[a completely inoffensive name]

Look up the definition of moderator.

Beyond that she didn't fact check. I should never have used that term. She was deliberately deceptive and portrayed Romney as a liar when his comment was completely defensible and no where near the most egregious "stretch" of the night.

She also only interjected that one time, this gives her comment allot of weight as the viewer thinks the comment must have been way out of line for the moderator to interject.

This, followed by the absolute disgusting rank closing of the media reminds me why I hate every journialism major I ever met.

Definitions change, jobs change as society and its needs change. Politics and debating is very different from the days of Lincoln-Douglas. It's noticeably different from the days of Kennedy-Nixon. The purpose of things can change, it just depends on whether we feel it should change or not and if there is a compelling reason to change it. You obviously don't think there is a reason to change it, nor Sasaki, which is fine. But tossing a dictionary at me isn't an argument.

Also, the debate is not meant for an education on the issues

As a voter, you are supposed to know the issues. The debate is for you to decide which candidates solution most squares with you. Candidates can lie their asses off and you need to be able to recognize that. It is your responsibility.

The laziness of the electorate has made debates into nothing more than abstract stump speeches that get interrupted.

It is your job to educate you

I think it is hopeless to think that the assertions of personal responsibility have any chance of turning around a country as self-indulgent as the US. You either create a structure to help people figure out the truth by providing the facts in relation of what candidates are saying, or you remove power from the public. That's why I said in the other thread I would rather have the public only vote for their local representative in the HoR.

[Montmorency]

It is your job to educate you

Every tyrant gives this statement his blessings.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think it is hopeless to think that the assertions of personal responsibility have any chance of turning around a country as self-indulgent as the US. You either create a structure to help people figure out the truth by providing the facts in relation of what candidates are saying, or you remove power from the public. That's why I said in the other thread I would rather have the public only vote for their local representative in the HoR.

All we really need is a change in the intellectual/academic/journalist culture. Hopefully as time goes by, and with the ease of access to a variety of information on the internet, it will become clear to more people that they are disgracefully incompetent.

[a completely inoffensive name]

All we really need is a change in the intellectual/academic/journalist culture. Hopefully as time goes by, and with the ease of access to a variety of information on the internet, it will become clear to more people that they are disgracefully incompetent.

It has been more or less 15 years since the internet entered mainstream society with its ease of access to information and the public has chosen to mostly spend their time reading Drudge or Huffington. I don't think people will exert responsibility on the internet if they won't exert responsibility in real life.

[Ironside]

You missed the point 100%. None of these candidates are good enough, and it is your attitude of complacency and apathy that allows it to continue. YOU are the problem.

I think you'll appriciate the ending.

[Ronin]

A moderator is not meant to be a fact checker. When she says Obama called it terrorism she loses all credibility as a moderator.

The actual context of the speech shows Obama hedging his bets, which is understandable. You don't want to get out too far ahead in these foreign policy debacles as they are nightmares to walk back. An added bonus is the ambiguous language allows Obama to reference the speech in an abstract way.

Crawleys language was unambiguous, added with the perception of being fair.

the fact that the moderator is being attacked for correctly pointing out a factual lie by one of the debaters is a sad sign of what the political game has become in American politics.
this is not about right or wrong, it's about "did it help my guy or not".....just ridiculous really.....if the moderator has pointed out a lie Obama has said then Fox News would be building her a statue.

[Strike For The South]

Definitions change, jobs change as society and its needs change. Politics and debating is very different from the days of Lincoln-Douglas. It's noticeably different from the days of Kennedy-Nixon. The purpose of things can change, it just depends on whether we feel it should change or not and if there is a compelling reason to change it. You obviously don't think there is a reason to change it, nor Sasaki, which is fine. But tossing a dictionary at me isn't an argument.

Things Change
Therefore Crawley can unilaterally decide when her role changes
She only does this once
And she is wrong to boot.

Every tyrant gives this statement his blessings.

Oh look a meaningless abstraction, your specialty. Supposed "public and neutral" media outlets are generally the first to be swallowed up by your "tyrants". I hesitate to even say that as tyrant is such a broad term.

the fact that the moderator is being attacked for correctly pointing out a factual lie by one of the debaters is a sad sign of what the political game has become in American politics.
this is not about right or wrong, it's about "did it help my guy or not".....just ridiculous really.....if the moderator has pointed out a lie Obama has said then Fox News would be building her a statue.

What Crawley said was in no way a fact. She acted on her perception of Romneys broad statement, which is out of line. She took his broad statement and attached a narrow meaning to it, which is out of line. She only did this once, this is also out of line.

It's a sad state when this sort of thing becomes permissible because the intelligentsia feels they pulled one over on Mitt.