Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

I don't know, I still don't see it. The only place where I see this Benghazi thing being made an issue out of is on Fox News. It doesn't seem to be an issue anywhere else. I never blamed Bush for 9/11. There are many bad people out there scheming to kill each and every one of us. Every once in a while they are going to have success. Time is on their side. That Benghazi incident seemed like a pretty fast moving event. I really wonder how much involvement the president had in real time, if any at all. Surely nobody is questioning that the president intentionally wanted the ambassador to be killed. It is very easy to look back and critique what should or souldn't have been done. For myself, i just can't see how a president's fate in an election depends on whether some people in Libya killed four of our people. Nine months into my term as mayor, when I was 31 years old, I got a call in the middle of the night. It was the city administrator. He told me that a 19 year old girl had been killed up on Main Street at a Big Apple convenience store. Her throat had been slashed. That's awful, I said, but why are you calling me in the middle of the night? There's more to the story, he said. The cops had been tipped off that this guy was going to be robbing that store that night. So the cops staked out the store. They set up a trip wire for the girl to pull when the guy came in. Six cops sat in three different locations around the store. Sure enough, the green truck with the wooden back bumper slowly drives by once. He turns around and comes back and parks in the convenience store lot. He goes into the store. The cops wait. They are waiting for the guy to commit the crime. Theyre waiting for the alarm from the trip wire. They watch the guy leave the store. Hmmm, no trip wire alarm. The cops enter the store. Lying at the back of the store is the 19 year old, bleeding to death on the floor with her throat slashed. All hell breaks loose. It was a nightmare, an epic screw up by law enforcement. The national media is calling me. we do press conferences. We hired an independent counsel to lead an investigation. We got high marks for the openness of our investigation and the measures we took. That girl getting killed had nothing to do with me or the city administrator. Very bad people out there do bad things to other people. Sadly, it happens. We live in a toxic, partisan society where somebody needs to get blamed for every bad thing that happens out there. I just don't see how the president gets blamed because some people in Libya decided one night that they were going to kill our ambassador. I just don't see this as the some big smoking gun moment for Obama. I know Sean Hannity and Gretta Van Susteren think so, but I just don't see it.

But I certainly respect your view on the matter.

And Brown is not going to lose to that 13 year old, is he?

Jim, awful story about the girl. I don't want to beat this to death, but I don't think you're getting it. Maybe the facts as revealed thus far are inaccurate, but the more that comes out, the worse this looks. This is not simply a story about four more unfortunate people killed in a war zone, and frankly the fact that most news organizations are handling it that way is all the more disturbing. This is about the deliberate decision from high up to allow those four to be killed. It's not a question of whether the president wanted the ambassador killed - it wasn't his idea and I'm sure he'd rather that it didn't happen, but he or his surrogates decided to do nothing to stop it. It would be as if your story was changed, and the police knew the girl was being killed, but decided not to go in. It would be as if Bush had intelligence the jets were on their way to the tower and called off any defense, said just let it happen. It would be as if the NYFD heard the screams in the towers on 9/11 and all decided to go home. They didn't get a report the next day detailing the unfortunate loss of life. They were in contact, in real time. Stand down, they were told. Let them overrun the embassy and everyone in it. Stand down. The plane has been called off. No support is coming. You're on your own. The two of you and your rifle versus 150 with mortars.

The details of it are frankly sickening, and you are correct, are not being reported in most channels. Maybe the details we're getting are all wrong. Maybe the sworn testimony thus far is only part of the story. If true, I can tell you this: the military is likely seething over this right now, more than being used as a pawn somewhere, more than being sent off on ill-conceived and illegitimate missions to some corner of the world. Stupid they can forgive; this kind of thing is another animal. I don't know.... maybe you have to have been military. Like I said, we all have our hot buttons. And like I said, it's far from the only issue in this election. But it reveals a character flaw I find repulsive.

Regarding the 13 year old, he's still the underdog but Brown is no sure thing. If you haven't seen this guy yet, do yourself a favor and google it. He doesn't look old enough to vote, let alone hold office. To be fair, I don't know enough about him to be dissing him, but I can't believe this is who they decided to pick as part of their push to take over the Senate. Did their first three choices all vet out as pedophiles again?

Oh I've seen him, he's the guy who kept repeating the same answer.
Geez I thought Brown was a safe bet.

Well I just googled "Benghazi cover up" and in 15 minutes have learned the truth, from reading the comments to a couple of articles, including one written by Andrew Breitbart. I thought he'd died but it must have been another blogger. Anyway, the Obama administration is actually supplying arms to al Queda to fight against Assad in Syria. (We are doing this because France needs Syrian oil). Apparently some of those arms and some of those militants made their way to Benghazi and shot up our ambassador. That's why Obama and the administration doesn't want to admit it was a terrorist attack and that they new that it was.

Sounds like the guy. Fair or no, there's some people who instantly make a small impression. Remember Bobby Jindal's reply to the State of the Union a couple of years ago? Before he said a word, from the minute he walked out, he looked like a kid in short pants or something....

True. Although, even though I am 180 degrees opposite to him politically, I think Jindahl has acquitted himself well in some of the disasters in New Orleans in recent years. I think he would be a catastrophe as president not because of his character but because of his views.

I wonder how this hurricane is going to impact the presidential race! Hard to imagine Obama hitting the campaign trail before the weekend. Or Romney, for that matter.

Scott I think it may be inaccurate to characterize the Fox Benghazi reporting as "facts as they are revealed." Time will tell but at this point in time this has a fishy smell of selective reporting and distortion to me. Perhaps to take advantage of the reaction that would be expected from current and former servicemen and women.

robertgoulet wrote:Not good for Barry

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/30/romn ... n-victory/

What'd it say? I couldn't get past the right-to-life pop-ups on my phone to read the story.

And who's Barry? Isn't Goldwater dead?

David, I hope you're right. I would actually be relieved to find out this was just someone's screw up, that transmissions didn't go through or up the chain, etc. FWIW, I'm not relying solely on Fox for this; a good bit of this is direct testimony from State Dept and CIA personnel. I have no delusions about Fox News political leanings or intentions, nor do I have any delusions about the leanings of those who are currently ignoring it.

What is this "mainstream media conspiracy" that Bill, Sean, Gretta and company are always talking about Scott? I know everyone else is wrong and Fox is always right, but who is conspiring against the Republicans? Sumner Redstone, staunch Republican/capitalist, owns CBS. The Jack Welch types at GE have owned NBC. ABC has former Nixon-speech writer Diane Sawyer as its anchor, leading conservative George Will as an anaylist, and other conservative reporters. I think George Stephanopolis actually goes overboard to accomodate Republicans lest people think the former Clinton guy is biased. I find that Wolf Blitzer grills Democrats every bit as hard as Republicans, and he always balances a Democrat against a Republican in the Situation Room. I've seen Candy Crowley make sausage out of Republicans and Democrats alike. Ask John Edwards and other Democratic guests who were made fools of just as equally as any Republicans whether they think Tim Russert was more biased towards the Democrats. The "fair and balanced" Fox News, on the other hand, has Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilley, Dick Morris (ew, I want to wash the slime off my hands just thinking about that guy) and other hyper-partisans. They had the Delaware witch on there as an analyst for a while, for crying out loud. There are a couple reporters on Fox who I think are reasonable (ChrisWallace, who's the guy during supper hour, before prime time, I'm drawing a blank on his name, I like him), but their prime time crew is obviously far, far right. The media are indeed Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism" (a line written by former conservative New York Times columnist and ABC pundit William Safire, incidentally), but I think they are generally pretty balanced in their incompetence.

Oh yeah.. Sheppard Smith... I think he's good.

Any thoughts on how Sandy will impact the election? Early voting for one thing. Here in MD, we lost 2 days which I think will be made up but have to check.

It may affect some early voting but, looking at it from a purely political standpoint, it gives Obama the chance to "look presidential" in time of crisis. And the Chris Christie endorsement certainly can't hurt!

Until I hear more results from Iowa and Ohio, I'm gonna move the Obama JHEPI down to 49. There's substantial tightening in places like PA, MN, even OR and ME. That can't be a good sign for Obama.

Jim, polling consistently shows that up to 90% of journalists self-identify as liberal. Various entities have attempted to evaluate bias across reporting and rank networks across a spectrum from left to right, with most of the "mainstream" falling left of center and Fox of course on the right. Everyone has a bias, whether they try to repress it or not, and we could fill pages with examples of apparent bias in reporting (I have no interest in doing that). I don't know if even the evaluators of bias are truly unbiased, nor do I think that any one person is completely objective in their own assessment. Personally, I think Fox is embarrassingly and unabashedly right (agree, the "fair and balanced" thing is a joke - they have a program called "The Five" where it's four conservatives beating up on Bob Beckel), just as MSNBC is embarrassingly and unabashedly left. Most of the rest is left of center, in my view, and though both sides have representation in non-traditional media, it tends to be dominated by those on the right. The major point is that none has exclusivity on the truth, and I think these days one has to sift through all of them. I get the WSJ and the NYT at home. I think there is a tendency for those with strong affiliations on one side or the other to be especially unlikely to see bias from those who share that opinion.

I too get the NYT and WSJ daily. I actually think the WSJ is a better newspaper than the Times, which I don't see in business in 5 years. I wish Murdoch would do with Fox what he has done with the WSJ: Conservative, but not tinfoil hat conservative....

Agree completely, Jim. But looking at the ratings he gets with the network don't hold your breath.....

polling ain't what it used to be given caller id and cell phones which have put landlines in peril.

As I said above, the Wednesday/Thursday before Election Day was the period we used to want to be peaking in as we tried to carry momentum into the final weekend. I have no idea who is peaking right now, and the hurricane has certainly made things more difficult to predict. We've seen close elections in the past 60+ years: Truman/Dewey, Kennedy/Nixon, Nixon/Humphrey, Carter/Ford, Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry. Have we EVER seen anything like this? I don't think so! In Bush/Gore we had two states -- FL and NH -- that were like agonizingly close. This year we could have a half dozen or more states that get decided by a few thousand (hundred?) votes each. Crazy.

Post-Sandy bump?
Virginia: Romney vs. Obama CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Romney 47, Obama 49 Obama +2
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 50, Romney 45 Obama +5
Florida: Romney vs. Obama CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Romney 47, Obama 48 Obama +1
Pennsylvania: Romney vs. Obama Franklin & Marshall Obama 49, Romney 45 Obama +4
Minnesota: Romney vs. Obama KSTP/SurveyUSA Obama 50, Romney 43 Obama +7
Illinois: Romney vs. Obama WeAskAmerica Obama 57, Romney 41 Obama +16
Massachusetts: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 59, Romney 40 Obama +19

Saw a story today about another angle. Both parties are trying to take advantage of early voting to get as many people to vote as possible. The author claims that the Dems have been flogging their likely voters and main supporters to get out whereas the GOP supposedly has been after those that are their usual fence sitters and less reliable base. How one can possibly study this I have no idea, but the gist is that 40% of the Dems hardcore base have already voted compared to 25% of the same for the GOP. The GOP strategy, so the story goes, is to count on the hardcore, motivated folks to come out on Tuesday regardless, and that based on this they may have a huge edge next week. Really interesting strategic stuff if remotely true, and I think of how much things have changed over the past 250 years. A whole industry built around electioneering.

As if this race wasn't tight and dramatic enough, we have the hurricane to add another twist and eliminate the last major window of polling data. Hollywood theatrics.

(Hope that isn't too insensitive to all the folks up East who are struggling with the mess. Don't mean to minimize your plight; just more election commentary....)

What are the sample dates of those polls Bacchus?

It's going to be a terrible letdown when this is all over. Good thing I'll be in an island paradise four houses from the beach where I can go and think about things.

I'm emotionally exhausted by this race!

Omg now Romney says he supports FEMA.
This guy will say ANYTHING!
What a fraud.

Here's another one. Apparently the GOP is 6/6 in elections held on Nov 6 historically. (Possibly the single least reliable statistical indicator I've heard in this two year election cycle, but in this last week it all gets thrown against the wall!)

Making the rounds. Made me laugh a little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjrthOPLAKM

666 is Romney's number for sure.

I'm glad I realized it in time.

Data on the 3 CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/111619086/Qui ... l2c2wr8j6x

Another Ohio poll (UofCin) has Obama up by 2. Dates - 10/25 - 10/30; sample size - 1182 LV
Out of WI - Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama Marquette University Obama 51, Romney 43 Obama +8 - dates: 10/25 - 10/28 1243 LV
A PPP poll out of NC has them tied at 49 each.

Two national polls:
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Romney 49, Obama 47 Romney +2
General Election: Romney vs. Obama National Journal Romney 45, Obama 50 Obama +5

A RoanokeCollege poll has Romney up by 5 in Virginia, but it's old (23rd-26th) and small sample size (638 LV).

Houndsong wrote:

lol

Loved that movie!

Those Bacchus poll numbers cause me to adjust my Obama JHEPI to 51.
Will be fascinating to see if there is a Sandy bounce.

Wow, huge props for O from Christie, of all people. Pics of them laughing and walking arm in arm down the boardwalk like teenagers in love. Everything but a big wet kiss! Question: will it a) help Obama, b) hurt Christie, c) both, or d) go completely unnoticed and make not a bit of difference.

Good questions, Scott, but it "feels" like a good day for Obama.
The Christie pictures can't hurt either of them.
The 8 point lead in Wisconsin in the Marquette Law School poll is a big poll for me on the Wednesday before the election.
Romney MUST break through in some of these midwest swing states, and time is running out.

Agree, Jim. At the risk again of sounding completely insensitive (I swear I'm not!) this break in the polls and away from the politicking feels to me like a break in the Romney mo that had been gathering. It does feel like Obama making a little pushback, just maybe. Who the hell knows? Still think it's too close to call.....

I think "C" - it will help Obama now and hurt Christie down the road... if Obama wins.