When President Obama is re-elected!!

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:49 pm

Cheer up Manton, it's not all gloom and doom.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... stiny.html

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:54 pm

manton wrote:I know a great deal about what happened in Bengazi and in DC at the time, and as more facts drip out, it looks progressively worse for the administration. I don't know what the upshot will be but at a minimum, this is going to cause Obama more heartburn for months and it's not all going to come from the right. Nor is it going to depend on people making things up.

manton,

As bad as the handling by the administration, I do not think you can hold the president accountable for what happened. Just like you cannot hold Bush accountable for 911. I mean it's unfortunate what happened in Libya, but sometimes that's the price we pay if we have to take leadership role in the world...

What's mind boggling is the same people who advocate for starving the beast - from where do they think they would find money to provide resources? Everything costs money, and it's a simple fact...Some one mentioned hurricane response. On television, here also the same people who advocate for limited government, they complain that government response was not enough, and the government should provide more help and resources. Geez, these people either have limited IQ or being disingenuous...I bet it's the latter...

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Bengazi, there are a number of things the President could have done, and a number of things he did do that she should not have done. Anyway, I don't want to hash out all the details, I'm just making a prediction: more will come out and it will damage the administration. If I am wrong and that does not pan out, you can say you told me so.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:09 pm

Bacchus wrote:Cheer up Manton, it's not all gloom and doom.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... stiny.html

Some of this may slow the decline but only for a couple of cycles at most.

manton · Post by **manton** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:16 pm

Chateau Vin, yes, both parties are to blame, which is why I said "liberals" not "democrats." To spend, borrow, inflate, etc. like we have been doing is a liberal, not a conservative, impulse. Certainly the Republicans have done it too, but rarely out of conservative principle, rather in opposition to conservative principle.

What has happened in the last two years or so is that finally a core group has emerged in Washington--mostly Republicans but some Democrats--that has forthrightly said "We can't keep doing this, it has to stop." The Obama administration paid lip service to doing something but campaigned on "No changes, ever." So did the Democrats in Congress. The voters threw out the Democratic House but not the Senate in 2010 and just reelected the President and the Democratic Senate.

Nothing is going to change. The status quo will remain in place--or possibly even accelerate--until there is a crash. Then there is a very small chance that we will be both lucky and astute, avoid total calamity, and get our act together. But the far likelier scenario is that the crash will bash us up far too badly.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:39 pm

Manton,

Yes I am an American citizen. Does it make me any less of one because I live abroad? I wanted to abandon my nationality when George W. Bush invaded Iraq on the trumped up charges and with the thousands of deaths we all know. My friends advised me against it saying that presidents come and go, and they were right.
You are more atuned than me to what it's like living in America today, but it might also be fair to say that I am more atuned to foreign affairs and America's role in the world. I grew up during the Vietnam war: napalm, carpet bombing, "incursions" into Cambodia and, above all, the humiliating defeat. Didn't you know this period too?
The American war machine is above all self-perpetuating and saps the resources of the nation. Its primary function is to enrich defense contractors. We were fed the "reds under the beds" line all during my formative years. There's a well-oiled propaganda machine out there, and you seem to have fallen victim to it.

Best regards,
Alex R.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:47 pm

Manton,

Oh, pardon me, I didn't counter your false assertions about Benghazi again.

Please forgive me,
Best regards,
Alex R.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:12 am

Why are you addressing that left-wing rant at me? I didn't say anything about where you live or anything else.

RE: Bengazi, like I said, I made a prediction. If it doesn't pan out, you can say you told me so.

You're sort of slipping into incivility, which is odd for the guy who posted about how nice it was that everyone is being civil here.

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:24 am

manton wrote:Chateau Vin, yes, both parties are to blame, which is why I said "liberals" not "democrats." To spend, borrow, inflate, etc. like we have been doing is a liberal, not a conservative, impulse. Certainly the Republicans have done it too, but rarely out of conservative principle, rather in opposition to conservative principle.

I don't know about that manton. When you say 'liberals', it is implied 'democrats'. The dictionary meaning is different, but the connotation is 'democrats'. That's why I had my response. I don't quite get it when you say republicans have done spending out of conservative principle. Spending is spending. You can say Reagan spent because the economy tanked when he took over. Bush Sr spent when the economy was tough. Bush W spent when he was facing downward economy. Well, I think based on the same principle, we can say Obama spent when the economy tanked ten times of the sum of all the downward economies of the above.

What has happened in the last two years or so is that finally a core group has emerged in Washington--mostly Republicans but some Democrats--that has forthrightly said "We can't keep doing this, it has to stop."

Do you think the core group would have emerged under the same circumstances but under a republican president? I don't like Obama's policies, but at least I am sane to see the facts, which most of the Americans ignore. Even before you look at Obama's proposal, the republican party made a priority to oppose everything at the expense of everybody. Never mind the scorched earth policy of opposition so that nothing gets done. For them, the priority had become (We all know what McConnell said) to see that Obama does not get the second term, even if it means dysfunction and chaos in the congress.

The Obama administration paid lip service to doing something but campaigned on "No changes, ever." So did the Democrats in Congress.
If you are talking about spending, and stimulus most public have no clue how bad the downturn was. I had the privilege of seeing the numbers and working and talking with the macro economists of uchicago, and I can assure you it will blow the previous recessions out of the water (exception of great depression). I think it's very fortunate what we have now, propped by stimulus and bailouts. I don't like them, but what do you do with tax cuts, wars going on tagged with huge bills? The other option is cut taxes, sit back and wait for the turn around. How long it would take to recover nobody knows....American public is an impatient group, and they think that the economy should turn around just like that. If you go the second route, we would be lucky if the economy turns around in 10 yrs IMO.

The voters threw out the Democratic House but not the Senate in 2010 and just reelected the President and the Democratic Senate.

The republicans probably would not have kept the house if not for the gerrymandering of the districts. IMO, this method of redistricting garbage is one of the root causes of evil. With this redistricting, republicans and democrats have constituents with their respective electorate bases in majority. If you have your electorate base in majority, then what is the incentive to make a deal with the opposition and get things done? The congressmen care about reelection, and if you have your own base in majority, anyway you are gonna win irrespective of what you do. Where is incentive to reach out to the other side and get things done for the country?

Nothing is going to change. The status quo will remain in place--or possibly even accelerate--until there is a crash. Then there is a very small chance that we will be both lucky and astute, avoid total calamity, and get our act together. But the far likelier scenario is that the crash will bash us up far too badly.

Unfortunately, that's where we are heading if things don't change. I mean it has come a point where, if a republican reaches to the otherside (and vice versa), he/she becomes an outcast and is in crosshairs of their own party.

As far as fixing the economy, Obama should have concentrated on economy first instead of healthcare. But I think it's a political decision, which I don't agree with the timing of it. But I can see that he has done it because, he had the senate and congress in 2008, and thought that he might not have that majority soon. So he went ahead and did it while he had the majority...

I think each side should stop thinking that their ideas are good while brushing aside the other side's ideas as worthless. Just pick the good ideas on both sides and act together. It will only happen when they stop behaving childish and stop acting blind...

...

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:52 am

manton wrote:Why are you addressing that left-wing rant at me? I didn't say anything about where you live or anything else.

RE: Bengazi, like I said, I made a prediction. If it doesn't pan out, you can say you told me so.

You're sort of slipping into incivility, which is odd for the guy who posted about how nice it was that everyone is being civil here.

Alex,
Tmas asked if you were American. Not Manton.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:39 am

I thought Dick Morris actually acquitted himself quite well tonight.
He admitted his big mistake: He underestimated the non-white/youth demographic.
O'Reilly is the one in denial tonight.
He thinks romney lost merely because of Sandy, if the election had been held 8 days ago, yada, yada, yada....

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:54 am

Even George Will, who is clearly partisan but usually measured, predicted an easy Romney win. The GOP missed badly here, primarily far underestimating the turnout the Dems are now able to muster. Amazing how things have changed in two years, from the big mid-term sweep.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:06 am

Did he really, Scott? That's fascinating. Because anybody who simply looked at the polls (e.g., me and Nate Silver) realized this was going to be an Obama electoral college landslide. Like every single poll had Obama winning. Fascinating that the facts got lost in all the bluster. I mean, which states did he think Obama was gonna win? Wisconsin? Iowa? Ohio? Nevada? to me, the only slight surprise of the night was Florida, and that was a surprise in Obama's favor. And I called FL for Obama. Absolutely fascinating how the Romney campaign and Reince Prebius bluffed their ways into convincing the shallow media that they were legitimate, when the actual reality was that Romney NEVER had even an iota a chance. In the end I rated it 99% for Obama. Silver had it at 91%. there simply was no way Romney was going to win this race, and it is fascinating that these so-called experts like George Will didn't see it coming. Chris Matthews described it well tonight: A 6th round knockout. Plouffe and Messina and Axelrod HAD to be laughing these last two weeks, watching all these experts predicting for Romney, when their internals were showing like ZERO percent chance of defeat in places like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada, places that were like guaranteeing victory. 332-206.... As of Monday night, after the second poll that day that had Obama up 50-47%, it was a no-brainer. How George Will or anyone could possibly think Romney was gonna win after Monday night is astounding to me. Clearly, he didn't look at a single poll. Because by that point, literally EVERY poll, with the exception of the ties in Rasmussen, had Obama ahead. Crazy.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:42 am

So who wins in 2016:

Clinton/Castro

vs.

Rubio/Christie

(Secret: I have the answer.)

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:47 am

Here's my secret answer... and you guys should trust me, because I called the last election exactly, 332-206...

Hillary Clinton and San Antonio Mayor Juan Castro are going to defeat the Republican ticket of Marco Rubio and Chris Christie....

And here's a bonus secret.... It is going to be the end of the Republican Party as we know it, as the Tea Party/Evangelicals peel off and splinter the party, leaving a white/black/latino Democratic Party coalition to govern for the next 50 years, a supreme court majority, etc., into the second half of the century.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:02 am

Does anyone realize what Mitt Romey was up against in the electoral college?

There were 9 "swing states": Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Virginia and Nevada.

The Republicans tried to bluff that Pennsylvania was a swing state, but the Obama campaign got a total good laugh out of that one.

The one swing state that was tough to win was North Carolina. Otherwise, ALL of the other 8 swing states -- including Florida -- the Obama campaign expected to win. So, going into election day, it looked like the Obama campaign was going to win 8 out of 9 swing states.

Now, here's the big secret.... The Obama campaign ended up winning EIGHT out of the nine states. But guess how many they needed to win.... Not eight. Not seven. Not six, five, or four. Thy needed to win THREE of those states...

And they won EIGHT out of nine.

That was the situation last night.

How anyone, George Will or anyone else, could think Romney had a chance, is beyond me.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:17 am

Rubio will not be the nominee and Christie will not be on the ticket at all.

Your prediction of a 50 year D majority is actually an understatment, there will be a D majority until the country falls, which might actually be before 50 years.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:28 am

An interesting read: "The Polls Ultimately Ended Up Making Sense — But Next Time, Who Knows?" http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/po ... sense.html

Also, a summary of how much Rasmussen missed the outcome against their final polls: CO -7, IA -7, NH -7, WI -7, VA -5, NV -4, MI -4, FL -3, NC -3, MN -3, OH -2. Avg: 5.2% off, despite that their final polls were much more "herded" to the pack than even just 2-3 days earlier...

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:09 am

Manton,

I apoligize for confusing you with Tmas as for the nationality question, but the rest of the post was indeed meant for you

.

Benghazi: Yes, let us see how the story unfolds if it does at all. Where we agree is that there was indeed a fuck-up. Where we don't agree is to up to what level of power it can be attributed. I don't think this is anything like the Watergate scandal.
Hillary Clinton publicly accepted responsibility and she's leaving now.
By the way, last night I saw the Ben Affleck movie "Argo", which shows how 6 American embassy employees were able to escape during the Iranian Revolution passing themselves off as Canadians. Good flick.

You wrote "You're sort of slipping into incivility". Sorry if it seemed that way. You accused me of being naive, I said that it looked like you were letting yourself be manipulated, which is maybe saying sort of the same thing. Two different world views confront one another, two conceptions of society.
Of course, what you or I or anybody on this thread thinks is not going to have a great deal of bearing on the course of history, but some of us (myself included) can't help but cling passionately to our beliefs.

The word you hear more and more about America is "polarized". The one thing that the French and American peoples share is a belief in the universality of their values and their "mission civilisatrice". As for America, however, people don't agree on the same values any more, don't have the same hopes and ambitions. Reflecting this, the government is seized up and partisan to an exasperating degree.
Viewed from my vantage point, the US does seem somewhat rudderless. Also, a number of people who voted for Romney have an idealized, Ozzie and Harriet vision of America in their mind's eye, and long for a past that is gone forever...

Question is: what (rather than who) can bring people together?

Best regards,
Alex R.

tmas · Post by **tmas** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:19 am

Jeez AlexR, Try to pay attention to who's saying what,

Again, you're wrong on Benghazi, it's obvious if you approach it with an open mind. I believe manton is correct, we haven't heard the last of it by a long shot. The man who won will be shown to be the liar anyone with their eyes open knows he is.

You say: "The American war machine is above all self-perpetuating and saps the resources of the nation. Its primary function is to enrich defense contractors. We were fed the "reds under the beds" line all during my formative years. There's a well-oiled propaganda machine out there, and you seem to have fallen victim to it."

Did you pull that straight out of some college newspaper from the 60's that you picked up while you were running around in your Roman sandals trying to score a bag of pot? What bulls**t! The war machine has saved your a** and that of every other Americans' countless times throughout our history, it's why every American gets to enjoy freedom, even if they choose to condemn it. It is you AlexR who are the victim of propaganda.

Oh, I remembered the name of that Merle Haggard song, you should check it out on "azlyrics.com", it's called "The Fightin' Side Of Me". Prescription: get yourself a copy, listen to three times daily until your unfounded leftist notions have ceased to reside in your mind. If that doesn't work, perhaps you should take your friend's advice and abandon your nationality. I don't say this in a mean spirited way, but rather because I think it would make you happy, and it's good to be happy, and to be who you are.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:20 am

Tmas,

I think it is deeply insulting to blame Obama for something that was totally out of his control (I notice that Obama shut Romney up on this point during the debate, and rightly so). Do you think the president of the US should be like God, and expected to pull all the strings on every aspect of government? How ridiculous can you get? Calling Obama a liar - as if he's supposed to be on top of security at every goddam US diplomatic representation in the world! - reminds me of nothing so much as children in the playground.
How the right wingers can say they love their country, but hate their government and president is impossible to understand.

The US military has done heroic things. And terrible, morally reprehensible things. Ever heard of Abu Ghraib?
Should we ge grateful to the Republican politicians for the God-awful mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, unwinnable, horribly expensive wars in defiance of international law?
Do you know what it's was like to hear Dick Cheney, the Vice-President of the US, condoning torture?
American values, did I hear you say?

Your assimilating me with a hippie and telling me my words are bullshit do not speak well for your level of tolerance or politeness.
I'm pushing 60. I run my own small prosperous business. Who are you to presume who I am?

Your last post could have been written by Archie Bunker. Remember him?

Alex R.

robertgoulet · Post by **robertgoulet** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:43 pm

Another post pearl about this election....now we do not have to hear about the names Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn or Rev. Wright anyone

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:38 pm

Just because the liberal elite mainstream media polls weren't wrong does not mean they didn't conspire to throw the election!

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:19 pm

I did not accuse you of being naive, but it's clear from reading your posts that you are so far off to the left that I have no common ground with you at all, so continuing the conversation would be pointless and probably upsetting to us both.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:52 pm

>>
you are so far off to the left that I have no common ground with you at all, so continuing the conversation would be pointless
>>

If congressional Republicans take this point of view toward the administration in the upcoming session the country will suffer. The
American people want action on the problems we face; not more gridlock.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:53 pm

Gail Collins had a good line in today's column:

O’Reilly, 63, added that the new majority was composed of people who “want stuff.” As opposed to older white men, all of whom have signed a pledge never to accept veteran benefits, Social Security or Medicare.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:54 pm

Manton,

As Stefan says, what America needs is to get past the polemics and down to work.

There are verbal excesses on both sides. For sure.

The government continues to be crippled by a disagreement between the executive branch and the legislative branch.
The media speak of a "fiscal cliff" approaching in January.
But compromise is possible, isn't it???

I subscribe to the Economist magazine (not exactly left wing, by the way!). They said that Obama had played golf one hundred and forty something times since he was elected president, but only once or twice with a Republican...
Efforts need to be made all around...
Isn't there such a thing as "the superior interest of the country"?

All the best,
Alex R.

Hoping so,
Alex R.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:01 pm

Jim, I said from the beginning the JHEPI was my go to poll. You were all over it. Have to say, the only thing that gives me a touch of pause about your predictions is that I recall one James Carville saying exactly the same thing - the next 50 years - after William Jefferson won. That said, the only ting that can derail the Dems at this point is the Dems. They'd better not forget that (but always seem to).

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:11 pm

Alex, my friend, either you have a selective memory or you're not listening on this Benghazi thing. Early on I showed you links that demonstrated that people on the ground had requested assistance for months before the attack, up until hours before and during the assault itself. All requests were denied by State and ultimate the White House. No one hear is remotely suggesting Obama was behind the attacks or coordinating the assault, which seems to be the case you're arguing. He or his administration made the decision to refuse assistance, which ultimately let people die. That's what happened. Inarguably. Factually. End of story. Who made the decision directly is not yet known, but all evidence shows the White House knows and is not saying.

Furthermore, recent releases from CBS (concerningly belated) show clearly, inarguably, that Obama did NOT admit this was a terrorist activity, despite his now famous assertion of the opposite, with an assist by Candy Crowley. Documents, video and emails in evidence already demonstrate that the White House knew what it was. He lied about it. End of debate.

The election is over. Democrats should celebrate. The Benghazi incident is shameful. Whether it will be pursued at this point remains to be seen. Arguing somehow that Obama's White House is innocent here is frankly embarrassing.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 pm

The country is going to suffer, period. Your side has all the power now and it will, not for the forseeable future, but forever. You can basically do what you want. The House will be easy to roll.

All this talk of "coming together" is nonsense. There is nothing to come together over. The differences are too large to be bridged and anyway Obama has zero interest in bridging them. He ran the most us v. them campaign since FDR in 1936. And he won handily. He can, and will, do whatever he wants.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:18 pm

And, my goodness, of course the Economist is left wing. Or more precisely, it is the in-house newsleterr of the Davos class, which itself is center-left and supports Obama (with the exception of Wall Street in 2012, but the WS of 2008 was way into Obama and now that they have no choice they will start kissing up to him again).

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:24 pm

Maybe I missed a day or two of civics when I was killing brain cells being a hippie, but Congress has the power. And there's no one party in control of Congress.
At the state level the GOP is still alive and well and will at least be running NC for a few years.
Isn't that what Romney preached? I'll kick the money back to the states and let them run it.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:30 pm

Do you honestly think any money is going to be kicked back the states so they can run things?

And, no, Congress no longer has the power. The administrative state, the 4th branch, namely the bureucracy, has the power. As Obama has shown, anything he can't get done legislatively he will do through EOs and the like.

I suppose the House can make itself into Horatius at the bridge re: tax hikes and spending increases but given the shellacking they just took, they are likely to make a deal, and the party to the deal in a position of strength is the President, not the House.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:57 pm

I subscribe to The Economist, manton, that's funny because I've always felt it was right of center.

I agree with Scott that the Dems are going to have to be successful. I would add that both parties have to put up strong candidates. The Dems have been doing a better job of that recently, in part because the Republican Party primaries are biased against moderation and weed out candidates who would be more successful in the general. I do think the Republicans have a huge demographics problem, though, and that's going to handicap them for a generation to come.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:05 pm

re: the supposed immoderaion of the Republican party, the party just nominated the most moderate centrist person who ran this year, a blue state governor who passed a universal health care law in his state. Every other candidate except Huntsman, who was clearly going nowhere, was to Romney's right one way or another and typically across the board. He still got soundly beaten. Why on earth it's self-evident that someone even more "moderate" would have won is beyond me.

And the demographic changes do not doom the R's for a generation. The doom it forever.

This is your game now. Your party has all the control and it always will. We may elect some RINO in 10 or 20 years but he won't be a conservative and he won't be able to, or even want to try to, change anything about the overall direction of the country. We made our choice Tuesday and that's that.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:12 pm

Mitt Romney won the primary because he was running against Moe, Larry, Curly, Harpo, Groucho....
I mean, I started this thread before the first Republican primary was held and I knew then he was the nominee.
I get a kick out if this argument Ive been hearing that Romney was "not conservative enough."
Right... I'm sure Michelle Bachmann would have done much better this past Tuesday night.

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:07 pm

JScott wrote:Alex, my friend, either you have a selective memory or you're not listening on this Benghazi thing. Early on I showed you links that demonstrated that people on the ground had requested assistance for months before the attack, up until hours before and during the assault itself. All requests were denied by State and ultimate the White House. No one hear is remotely suggesting Obama was behind the attacks or coordinating the assault, which seems to be the case you're arguing. He or his administration made the decision to refuse assistance, which ultimately let people die. That's what happened. Inarguably. Factually. End of story. Who made the decision directly is not yet known, but all evidence shows the White House knows and is not saying.

JScott, these assertions about no response and orders to stand down have been discredited by numerous authorities. You can listened to a retired general (meaning he has no incentive to keep his job by lying) go over the timeline and response here: http://www.npr.org/2012/11/02/164207549 ... azi-attack

One convenient aspect of the logic behind blaming Obama for the attack is the Bush is clearly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Afterall, he did have clear warnings that Bin Laden planned to attack the US with commercial jetliners, and yet he did nothing to improve airport security or go after Bin Laden, despite repeated and urgent calls from Richard Clark that he do so. Yet, I don't recall any conservative ever going after Bush on this failure.

hautbrionlover · Post by **hautbrionlover** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:13 pm

I will bypass the heated discussions that have occupied most of the posts over the last couple of days, and will focus only on JimHow's predictions re 2016. (By the way, when i woke up Wed. morning to see one of the morning news shows showing a Wisconsin paper stating that Paul Ryan was now the frontrunner for 2016, all i could think was "My God! Can't we have a decent interval before talking about the front runner for the next cycle?")
Jim- i confess that i am awed by your spot-on electoral vote prediction (since i think that FL will ultimately call it a day and declare Obama the winner there), but I don't buy the Hillary/Castro or Rubio/Christie tickets. Christie has now alienated the far right radical and evangelical GOP base, which controls the primaries, so i think he's out. I also don't see Rubio as a ticket topper (conceivably a number 2, since the GOP desperately needs to do something to play to the Latino vote). Frankly, I think that if Jeb Bush tosses his hat in the ring, he will be hard to beat for the nomination. He is much smarter and more articulate than his brother, has strong ties to the Latino community (his wife is Latino and i believe he is bilingual), and he would probably win Fl and TX going away. As for Hillary Clinton, i think that she would be too old in 4 years: she'd be 69, and i don't think that a candidate who'd be 77 at the end of the second term is a good (or appealing) idea. Julian Castro is great, but i think he'd need a higher office than mayor of San Antonio on his resume before he is even number 2 on the ticket. I think the Dem field is wide open.

manton · Post by **manton** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:17 pm

Blanquito wrote:JScott, these assertions about no response and orders to stand down have been discredited by numerous authorities. You can listened to a retired general (meaning he has no incentive to keep his job by lying) go over the timeline and response here: http://www.npr.org/2012/11/02/164207549 ... azi-attack

One convenient aspect of the logic behind blaming Obama for the attack is the Bush is clearly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Afterall, he did have clear warnings that Bin Laden planned to attack the US with commercial jetliners, and yet he did nothing to improve airport security or go after Bin Laden, despite repeated and urgent calls from Richard Clark that he do so. Yet, I don't recall any conservative ever going after Bush on this failure.

This is false from top to bottom, but why should I bother?

The efficacy of this stuff amazes me though. The truth will never, ever be accepted.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:36 pm

Thanks for the link, Patrick; I missed that interview. It seems pretty clear that there was a screw up somewhere in not providing adequate defense at Benghazi, but it hard to imagine that this is given so much weight by a few people. Obviously most Americans did not consider this an important issue and did not lay any particular blame on Obama for it, just as the American people did not blame Bush for 9/11, which was a much more serious incident. No doubt a careful review of what happen will lead to improved procedures for protecting our embassies and consulates.

I said during the campaign that Romney would do best by hammering on the economic issues and leaving attacks on foreign policy alone. At the end he more or less did that, but by then it was too late. Republicans who shot their mouths off at the time of crisis only hurt their own chances of winning the election. The worst enemies of the Republican party are in the Republican party.