November 2, 2012

"Althouse: If you could write your 'How Obama Lost Me' post in the next 24 hours, the race could come down to your influence!"

Writes Ruth Anne Adams in the comments to the "last 72 hours" post. She adds "But if you're going the way of Colin Powell not so much" and "But if you could at least reveal your voting preference in the next few hours, that could win a wager or seven."

I think she's misremembering what the "lost me" posts of the past were about. I started blogging in 2004, a presidential election year, and, after much coverage of the election, including a commitment to something I called "cruel neutrality," on September 26th, I wrote a post called "How Kerry lost me." This wasn't me explaining why I was going to vote against Kerry. It was me acknowledging how I felt and realizing that I could mine the blog archive to discover where that feeling came from.
Yet I find myself expressing an increasing amount of hostility to Kerry, so I thought I'd go back and trace the arc of my antagonism through my various posts.
It was a bloggy project, solving a mystery about myself by taking advantage of the archive. For example, I found the wellspring of my antagonism in a single remark: "You're not listening" (said to a man who asked him what his position on Iraq was, as if the man had simply failed to pay attention to some supposedly previously stated position, when I too had been waiting for Kerry to answer that question). And I found what was, to me, "his final, fatal mistake" (disrespecting Allawi!), which prompted me to write the "lost me" post.

In 2008, I wrote "How McCain lost me," which may have created the impression that "lost me" posts are an Althouse blog tradition. That post was written after the election, but — I said at the time — "it's the same in that I'm mining my blog archive to try to understand how my resistance to the candidate formed and hardened and caused me to vote for the other man."
I know that I voted against McCain. Up through August, I genuinely didn't know which candidate I'd vote for, but I knew I was taking more shots at Obama and therefore giving the impression that I favored McCain. I didn't trust Obama, and I feared (and still fear) what Obama would do with a Democratic Congress. McCain was a more familiar character, less fun to write about, and he was also the underdog. But by mid-October, I knew that unless something big happened, I would vote for Obama. It was nothing new that Obama did. I didn't start liking him more, and I never got caught up in the Obama lovefest.
It was a lot of work to mine that archive. Oddly, despite all that work, my commenters have accused me for the last 4 years of having fallen for Obama delusions. But the point of the work was not to drum anything into your head. It was, as it had been in 2004, an effort to see where my decision happened. That's what I'm interested in: How people think, where, in the emotional/reasoning mind of an individual, does a decision take place? The blog archive gave me the ability to examine that. What I wrote in the "lost me" posts of the last 2 elections was not anything like a newspaper's endorsement of a candidate or an argument designed to persuade anyone to agree with me. It has more to do with my professional interest in how judges make decisions: How does the human mind work?

Why haven't I done a "lost me" post this time around? I haven't had the experience of noticing that there is a mystery that I could solve by delving into old blog posts. As you can see in that last indented paragraph, above, I didn't trust Obama, and I feared what he would do with a Democratic Congress. We all saw what he did with a Democratic Congress. He let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have their way with him. It was horrible. It led to the Tea Party and the trouncing Democrats took in 2010. I've felt no connection to the Democratic Party since then. Of course, I don't like half of what the Republicans stand for, but I've still voted for some of them, notably Ron Johnson and (twice!) Scott Walker, because... what choice do I have? The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin.

If I could have been assured that the GOP would control both houses of Congress, I might have thought Obama would be good. I like balance, moderation, and pragmatism. If one of the hardcore righties had won the Republican nomination, I would probably have gone for Obama. But Mitt Romney got the nomination, which is what I had been hoping for (after Mitch Daniels decided not to run). It was time to pay attention again to Obama The Candidate, and his campaign centered on vilifying Mitt Romney in the most inane Occupy-Wall-Street style that was completely alienating to me. Romney seamlessly transitioned from being my choice in the primaries to being my presumptive choice for President. I remained open to Obama. Obama could have won me.

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

483 comments:

1 – 200 of 483   Newer›   Newest»
Bill said...

The Democrats' majority in the Senate is only going to get bigger, since they've got Indiana in the bag now, too.

What is it with the GOP and mind-numbingly stupid comments about rape and abortion? I mean...rape, something that god intended? Jesus H. Christ.

I'm not voting. I hate all the candidates.

Freder Frederson said...

Meanwhile, dog bites man. Film at ten.

I am sooooooooooooooooooooooo shocked!

Rose said...

Thank God.

bagoh20 said...

"Obama could have won me."

Regardless, of who you vote for, you are not someone who should be making hiring decisions. You would draft Robert Reich for your basketball team to get a more "pragmatic" team. To manny tall guys and all you get is a lot of scoring and stuff.

donald said...

It's mind blowing to me that you were still considering that sociopath till recently.

carrie said...

I think Benghazi would close the door for a lot of people, if they knew about it.

Marshal said...

So even proof of Obama lying in support of race-baiting on Katrina had no effect? Or are you saying you always understood him to be this venal and accepted it a natural drawback to Democrats (the way being anti-abortion is for Republicans)?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


It took the negligent homicide of Benghazi to seal the deal???? Wow. Just wow.

bagoh20 said...

I don't judge people by who they vote for, most people don't really know much and often vote for the guy they would not if they knew more, but I do judge by how one makes the decision. If you know the facts and still can't value and sort them right, then it doesn't matter who you vote for in a judgement of your ability. Even a broken clock...

Shouting Thomas said...

Who you vote for, Althouse, doesn't occupy me as much as it seems to occupy your other readers.

Dante said...

But by mid-October, I knew that unless something big happened, I would vote for Obama.

Writes the woman who claims she makes her decision on the way to the polling booth. And spends a lot of ink defending it, including taking shots at people who have already made up their minds.

bagoh20 said...

The guy who did Benghazi was the same guy before it happened, doing Fast and Furious, pushing huge unread bills through congress, and poised to make similar bad decisions ahead. He was that guy in 2008 too, and nobody cared to know, even though it was obvious.

Dante said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

Just retitle the post to How Obama Lost Me (after only kinda-sorta of having me) and keep the pseudo-blog tradition alive!

Paddy O said...

This wasn't a post you had to write, but I'm glad you did.

Like you noted, it's not really a mystery. You're transparent and mostly this transparency takes form in the kinds of questions you are asking and the kinds of issues that you are concerned about.

It's interesting to me precisely because you're not an assumed Republican. I have a lot of affinity for liberal causes, if not liberal solutions, and I have a lot of liberal friends. I too could see myself voting for a Democrat if they actually took their rhetoric seriously--if the poor were actually helped, if the divisions were actually healed.

But, for now, I'm happy just seeing the blind being able to see--that the current party--with its hardened corruption and identity politics--really works against the causes it claims.

It makes sense to me that you were open to Obama for so long, not because he was a guy you liked but because he was the leader of a party which has stances you agree with (I'm thinking especially in terms of social issues). A President is more than a single leader or person--they represent a movement--in the direction of this country and in the court appointments--so of course it would take a lot to see past those priorities and realize the man himself is a liability and a danger.

Meade said...

For anyone who would like to read a superb blog post titled, "How Obama Lost me", written by someone with the name "Althouse", I highly recommend THIS.

Also, participants in the commentary section there were engaged at an especially high level.

garage mahal said...

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

I know this isn't a Newt Gingrich rumor, or a piece from FrontPagMage.com, but still:

U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack

“At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could,” a senior intelligence official said in a statement. “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

F said...

You touch on a point here that I don't hear anyone making: Obama's problem is not ONLY that he was a poor CEO, it's that he never really led. Obamacare, as an outstanding example, is the product of Congressional staffers and lobbyists, with little to no leadership from the President. Other Obama initiatives (Cash for Clunkers, bailouts, etc) are the same.

I think this is very much in the tradition of a community organizer: agitate to get change but let the change come about organically or in the guise of "restitution". That way, of course, no one can blame you for the results if they turn out badly. This appears to have been Obama's style all along, despite his insistence early on that he knows "better than his staffers" how to do things. He really doesn't know how to govern, only to pick the scab and leave it to someone else to heal the sore.

Benghazi was the final (I hope) illustration of his lack of leadership ability. And interestingly enough, one could hardly find a more capable executive in the United States than Romney, a man who has demonstrated in both the public and private sectors that he can figure out what's wrong and fix it. I expect good things from his administration even though I recognize that the press will hound him mercilessly starting November 7.

clint said...

Bill said...

What is it with the GOP and mind-numbingly stupid comments about rape and abortion? I mean...rape, something that god intended? Jesus H. Christ.

11/2/12 9:37 AM

---

He actually never said that.

What he said was that a child (even one conceived in rape) is still a child -- and that every child is loved by God and has a part to play in God's plan.

You can think that's dumb or naive or superstitious... but to claim that he said or thinks that God *wants* women to be raped is just disgusting.

Bob Ellison said...

That'll do, Professor. Nicely written.

FWIW, my arcs have been almost identical to yours. I don't mean to curry favor-- you and I are both married, and I don't need bloggy fame-- but the sameness in thinking interests me. I'll bet there are a lot of people in the middle, center-right, and center-left, who have followed the same path.

Paddy O said...

Plus, the Ruth Anne tag is especially appropriate in a retrospective post. She's been a valued commenter since the earliest days.

bagoh20 said...

Did Obama change in October that much? Of course not. You were just forced to look at him, and to face the real consequences of treating an election like it's American Idol. You saw how real a bad choices can be, and you didn't want to be slimed by it. Too late. I still think we got lucky with Obama, he could have been much worse and my well be yet. Get ready for disgrace if get a second term.

Ivy said...

this slammed the door for me: “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."



MikeR said...

"what choice do I have? The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin." A very clear summary of where some of us have been holding since 2009.

And please, progressives, don't tell me about how irresponsible Republicans have been. I know that. But I also know that the people in politics today who are willing to tell the truth about the deficit, and risk their careers for it - are Republicans. Some Republicans. Democrats, all Democrats, keep California-ing away: Add this measure, that trick, "cut" the deficit by a third while doubling it somewhere else, keep telling us they're taking steps when things are just going in the wrong direction... Mr. Obama continues to go about the country telling people about a 4 trillion dollar cut which is actually also a ten trillion dollar increase. Until everything collapses.
Tell me anything you want about Bible-thumpers. What choice have I?

EMD said...

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

I know this isn't a Newt Gingrich rumor, or a piece from FrontPagMage.com, but still:

U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack

“At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could,” a senior intelligence official said in a statement. “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”


Garage, the photo and its caption are damning enough. "A man looks at documents at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya." on November 1.

Jake Diamond said...

The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin.

Says the crazy lady who voted for George Bush twice.

Anyone who voted for Bush has lost all credibility on the subject of budget deficits and debt. Your best strategy is to shut up and hope that one day people forget that Bush drove the economy off the cliff.

tim in vermont said...

Well garage, that's one more story to throw on the pile of stories that have been coming out.

You tell me how that squares with Panetta's statement that we didn't have enough information to send men into harm's way? Just to name one.

Why wasn't a gunship flown there which could have settled the issue in minutes? To name another.

Paddy O said...

Meade, I don't disagree with the high level of the comments so far, but that link seems particularly self-referential and, indeed, even hopeful. Who knows what kind of lame comments this thread will fill with in future hours!?

phx said...

In releasing a detailed timeline of CIA actions that night, senior intelligence officials have put aside long-standing concerns about revealing the extent of the agency's presence in Benghazi in order to push back against what officials say are baseless allegations that aid was withheld.

"At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could," a senior intelligence official said in a statement. "There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support."

From garage's link.

AprilApple said...

Ponder this post, and perhaps the dead-bolt will slam shut.

EMD said...

Anyone who voted for Bush has lost all credibility on the subject of budget deficits and debt. Your best strategy is to shut up and hope that one day people forget that Bush drove the economy off the cliff.

The American people buying houses they could not afford drove the economy off a cliff.

Bender said...

I don't like half of what the Republicans stand for

Oh you like Republicans just fine. It is conservatives for whom you have this irrational animus. Most of the Republican Party shares that antipathy.

Bob Ellison said...

We need a pool on how many comments this will reach by, say, midnight tonight. I say 421.

tim in vermont said...

Well Jake, I guess it makes it much easier to think about stuff if you shitcan all the inconvenient facts, such as when the deficits started, 9-11, and when the path back to a balanced budget fell off course, well, that would be when the Democrats took over spending in 2006.

Remember the great election of 2006? That is when the deficit curve bent in the wrong direction again.

EMD said...

Phx, those are also all unnamed sources that provide little in the way of physical proof.

FWBuff said...

Thank you, Ann, for your post and your openness about your decision-making. Although I have supported Romney and the Republicans from the beginning, I appreciate your blog (and the other commenters) very much. You make the effort to present both sides, and you challenge us to think through issues and positions. It's always good to get perspective; it makes us better thinkers, voters, and citizens. This blog is not the echo-chamber that so many other liberal and conservative sites tend to be.

AReasonableMan said...

Althouse repeatedly links to Drudge and that most ridiculous of all Republican hacks, Instapundit. She also favorably comments on Rush Limbaugh's inanities on a regular basis. For someone with this pattern of behavior to claim that she was 'open' to voting for Obama requires a suspension of disbelief so great that no one with any functioning neocortex could be convinced.

It is fine to be a Republican hack rather than independent, just own it, don't deny it. I don't understand the need to disavow this position.

An independent would regularly link to Huffington Post as well as to Drudge, would quote Daily Kos as often as Instapundit (although there is no one quite as hacky on the left), and would approvingly quote the contributions of Randi Rhodes to the national discussion along with those of Rush.

None of this ever happens. It is just straight down the line Republican hack propaganda. Not independent, completely dependent.

MadisonMan said...

I agree with Paddy O about the transparency of who you'll vote for. It's in what you choose to blog about, and many of your topics in the past 4 years reflected, I think, profound disappointment in how Obama has governed.

Of course, those blog choices are also modulated by what you think your readers will find interesting to comment on, and disappointment in Obama fits that bill.

EMD said...

"A man looks at documents at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya." on November 1.

That man also has a camera.

The fact that they didn't even secure the area within days tells me a lot, too.

phx said...

The American people buying houses they could not afford drove the economy off a cliff.

That's true. And both parties have been complicit in screwing this up.

Inga said...

They don't care Garage, their version of what happened is much more appealing to them. Screw the truth, right?

EMD said...

although there is no one quite as hacky on the left

Lawrence O' Donnell? Be honest.

Bob Ellison said...

A reasonable man?

Cedarford said...

It is hard for Republicans to accept that they, in many ways, are still in the doghouse due to Bush. They lost trust in Republican leadership.

The Tea Party revolt did not expiate Bush's negligent management of the economy, our finances, the K Street corruption of Hastert, DeLay, Frist & Co that Bush tolerated.
Or his "American Churchill" gambit of two lost neocon "nation-building" wars that cost us 45,000 casualties and 2 trillion pissed away.
In a sense, the Tea Party revolt was a shot across the Republican Party bow as much as it was a revolt on Obama being worse than Bush. We don't trust you either!

This is the main reason why Romney has struggled. Wrongly, he is cast with the Corruptican big business faction.

People fear a return of "business as usual" Republican favoring of Wall Street and big business and the rich banker class.
And don't want more wars of adventure - only war in last extremis, only when America's vital interests are at stake.
Not the suffering people of Syria, not the noble oppressed Congolese, not women persecuted in Yemen, not for Israel, not war for saving noble N Koreans....

That is what changed for many in the 1st debate. Romney seemed smart and trustworthy, despite the Bolshevik/Alinsky demonization campaign.

And Romney perhaps could have done more on the Trust Issue by hammering Obama on all his failed promises, and hammering him more on his and his Administration's Benghazi lies.

Patrick said...


Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.


I would be curious to know whether this affects late breaking undecided voters at all. To begin with, I wonder how many are even engaged with the issue. There is a general perception that the election is all about the economy, but how far does an even like Benghazi swing those voters at all? I would think that to the extent that it moves voters, it would move them away from the President, but is that 1000 votes or 100,000?

Remains to be seen.

Dante said...

I like balance, moderation, and pragmatism.

I don't understand.

a) What are you balancing? I suppose this means the mores of two large political parties that have learned how to take every issue in life and politicize it?

b) Moderation. I don't know what this means either. Does it mean always being between two poles? Like at the equator? Or does it mean a little bit of crime is OK, a little bit of homicide is OK. But not too much? Is everything between two poles? Are there no absolutes?

c) Pragmatism. That's a fine word, and it can be used to guide us. However, I have seen it abused as well. We can't achieve the ideal of XYZ because of decisions we have made in the past. This leads to the status quo embedding itself into the culture, when the status quo may be damning. As an example, a recent study on Welfare indicates federal and state governments are spending on average of $60K for poverty programs per impoverished household, or greater than the median household income. Yet, what can one do about it? All these people now depend on the programs, so you can't get rid of them.

Frankly, this moderation seems to me to be a recipe for decay, making peace with parasitic elements in society, and a triangulation of opinion, as opposed to leadership.

And yes, that's why I don't like Mitt Romney, because I think the country needs leadership, and the populace to be educated. Maybe he can set the stage, but he would be torn down as a president, or ineffective.

phx said...

Phx, those are also all unnamed sources that provide little in the way of physical proof.

I didn't claim anything more. Of course, the claims coming from the other side...

tim in vermont said...

Bill Clinton:

"I left you with a balanced budget built on short term debt. Nobody ever thought to do that before because it was too risky, but ooiee! It shore worked! Of course if interest rates have to come up again, we are crashed on the rocks, but I ain't president anymore so who cares?" Billy Blythe Clinton.

tim maguire said...

I don't see how you could still think it "odd" that people accuse you of falling for the Obama magic. You're "How McCain lost me" post was full of perfectly reasonable reasons to not like McCain, but it did nothing to argue for choosing Obama over McCain. Why didn't Obama matter? He is the guy you helped put in the White House, after all.

But then, some time later, it came out. A commenter found a very nice way of saying you voted for Obama because you thought it would be cool to vote for the black guy. You and Meade both singled that commenter out as having hit the nail on the head. For all your in-depth explaining, the truth is, you voted for Obama because you thought it would be cool to vote for the black guy.

As for your willingness to consider Obama now, he of race baiting, obscene deficit spending, kill list making, economy ignoring, national interest undermining, Benghazi lying, treasury looting, corrupt cronyism fame, well, much as I enjoy your blog and appreciate your blogging...I enjoy your blog and appreciate your blogging. I'll leave it at that.

AReasonableMan said...

EMD said...
although there is no one quite as hacky on the left

Lawrence O' Donnell? Be honest.


I have never seen him but I am happy to give you this one.

mark said...

@Garage

So I wonder why the President lied on national TV multiple times about what happened. Odd. CIA responds to an attack in less then 1/2 an hour. President takes weeks to stop lying about a video.

I shouldn't be surprised though. This is a man who watches a vote pass and a week later lies and says it didn't pass because whites hate black people.

Shouting Thomas said...

Oddly, Althouse, I think the Benghazi thing is more an indictment of Obama's lapdog media than of Obama's admin.

Yeah, what Obama did was deplorable.

But, an opposition media might have stopped him before he totally shit himself. The problem with this administration is that it is protected from criticism.

That is incredibly dangerous.

Jay Retread said...

Ann, you are always the windbag. At least you have Meade to but up with all of your pretensions.

EMD said...

I didn't claim anything more. Of course, the claims coming from the other side...

You'll notice I used the word "also."

Bob Ellison said...

The Instapundit/DailyKos comparison is revealing. Some people think the truth always lies exactly in the middle between opposing viewpoints...until they stand well on one side. Then it's way over.

Sometimes the truth, or the wisdom, lies well to one side. Often, in fact. During the tulip-mania in Holland, it lay on the side of selling bulbs, not buying them. It probably lies on the side of selling gold, not buying it, today.

Since I'm convinced Romney is going to win, and that that result will help the economy surge ahead, I'm buying in America.

phx said...

For all your in-depth explaining, the truth is, you voted for Obama because you thought it would be cool to vote for the black guy.

Don't you love this shit?

AprilApple said...

That LA Times article is bullshit. It doesn't square with any other information. oh and if the administration acted so "fast" - why are 4 of our people dead? Including our ambassador.

Why was the whole thing blamed on an obscure video and a flash mob?

Once again, it’s the bad faithers who refuse to see the truth.

bagoh20 said...

A actually find this decision and how it came more disappointing than your 2008 vote for Obama, which I at least could see some reason for although the analysis was unbalanced at the foundation. This is just dumb luck brought about by a chance of bad timing of one of the consequences of the previous decision - "...an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

Michael K said...

"What is it with the GOP and mind-numbingly stupid comments about rape and abortion? I mean...rape, something that god intended? Jesus H. Christ."

You are obviously determined to misunderstand the man. Perhaps it is because you have always been an Obama supporter or perhaps you just don't like religious people. The man said the baby was God's will, not the rape. Agonizing over the choice to take the baby's life to spare the mother the burden of bearing the rapist's child is something very religious people might do. You don't understand and never will.

Why not say so instead of something stupid ?

tim in vermont said...

"By the way, if nobody buys our debt at such low interest rates, we can always just buy it ourselves with fresh printed lucre! Naaah! That would never happen in a millyon years! You know whah? Because that would cause inflation and cause interest rates to rise and all of our debt is short term so that would lead to financial collapse, and who wants that?" - Billy Blythe Clinton.

EMD said...

I don't think what happened the night of in Benghazi is as damning as what happened before and after.

The lack of security on both the front and back end.

The blame game centered on the video as the impetus for the 'spontaneous attacks."

The constantly shifting narrative that has little to do with the intelligence on the ground.

SteveR said...

Having been around since the "how Kerry lost me" days, and knowing your political/voting history, I understand the process of how you come to a choice is more interesting for you to write about than the actual choice.

As with other subjects on here, its too often the case that people just want you to support their own opinion. I may not always agree with you but I do appreciate being able to learn how you come up with your decisions or opinions. I think its a unique attribute of this blog.

AReasonableMan said...

Bob Ellison said...
Sometimes the truth, or the wisdom, lies well to one side.

Did the truth lie with the Republican hacks as their party ran the economy into the ground during the 2000's? Of course not. A balanced presentation is exactly that, a willingness to listen to all sides.

Sometimes both sides are wrong. It is never the case that one side is always right.

gmama3 said...

Bill said...

What is it with the GOP and mind-numbingly stupid comments about rape and abortion? I mean...rape, something that god intended? Jesus H. Christ.

Clint explained the comments accurately. I suppose there are two ways to look at things. If you strongly believe that a baby is a baby from conception, then it is hard to reconcile that killing a baby because of the manner it is conceived makes that murder okay.

On the other hand, Obama voted twice to deny medical care to babies born alive during very late term abortions. If someone suggested treating puppies in such a manner there would be an out cry.

So what you assert, is that it is worse for a politician suggest that a woman who is raped carry a baby for 9 months and allow a new life into the world (there are millions who would love to adopt it), than it is to allow a viable baby to die on a cold metal table because his mother decided she didn't want him.

I don't hold either "extreme" viewpoint, but I can't see how it is worse to allow a life at the expense of someone's continued suffering than it is to calculatedly let a most helpless one expire based on another's preference.

bagoh20 said...

" ...if the administration acted so "fast" - why are 4 of our people dead? Including our ambassador."

If only he had a more powerful nation and military at his disposal, they keep letting him down.

edutcher said...

Madame, some of us never doubted you.

(thanks, Meade, those subliminal whispers across the pillow worked great)

Inga said...

They don't care Garage, their version of what happened is much more appealing to them. Screw the truth, right?

Oop screws everything else.

Truth included.

garage mahal said...

That LA Times article is bullshit. It doesn't square with any other information

Other information. Like Newt Gingrich rumors?

More information:

[A] senior official also sought to rebut reports that C.I.A. requests for support from the Pentagon that night had gone unheeded.

In fact, the official said, the military diverted a Predator drone from a reconnaissance mission in Darnah, 90 miles away, in time to oversee the mission’s evacuation. The two commandos, based at the embassy in Tripoli, joined the reinforcements. And a military transport plane flew the wounded Americans and Mr. Stevens’s body out of Libya.
link

phx said...

Some of you are just going to have to go out and join a militia if Obama gets reelected. Do something with that sneering anger.

AReasonableMan said...

Bob Ellison said...
Since I'm convinced Romney is going to win, and that that result will help the economy surge ahead, I'm buying in America.


Since you are voting for Romney you are obviously comfortable buying in America whatever was made in China.

MadisonMan said...

What is it with the GOP and mind-numbingly stupid comments about rape and abortion? I mean...rape, something that god intended? Jesus H. Christ.

I see you attribute that quote to one Jesus H. Christ. Any relation to the son of God?

bgates said...

Anyone who voted for Bush has lost all credibility on the subject of budget deficits and debt.

The best defense of Bush on deficits was always that the Democrats would be much worse, as in fact they have been. Any single year of spending under Obama has added as much to the debt as the worst two years under Bush.

rhhardin said...

This is the female human mind, not the male human mind.

The male mind closes when it's been lied to.

The blog retrospective is simple.

But the female mind wants all possibilities left open. "Maybe he means well."

The retrospective becomes hazy, uncertain and Konigsbergian.

Patrick said...

Oh, I see. Senior administration officials say they totally didn't fuck up and let their people die. Might as well accept what they say without further investigation.

Cedarford said...

Bender said...
I don't like half of what the Republicans stand for

Oh you like Republicans just fine. It is conservatives for whom you have this irrational animus. Most of the Republican Party shares that antipathy.

====================
Problem is both Parties , by the Primary system, give zealots and well-organized factions like government union employees, self annointed "black leaders" able to summon 500 angry blacks to demonstrate against whatever their latest shakedown target is, the Grover Norquistians, the organized RTL Fundie goobers.

It would behoove the Republicans to rein in their idiots, or make them pariahs.

For starters - Wash their hands of the right to life zealots that claim rape is God's Will that women should be forced to bear and love their rapist's "blessed baby", or claiming that no women gets pregnant from "real rape", and any claiming they were impregnated by a rapist are obvious liars.

AprilApple said...

The leftwinger nutjobs sure are obsessed with rape.

Michael K said...

"Jake Diamond said...
The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin.

Says the crazy lady who voted for George Bush twice.

Anyone who voted for Bush has lost all credibility on the subject of budget deficits and debt. Your best strategy is to shut up and hope that one day people forget that Bush drove the economy off the cliff."

Says Rip van Winkle who was asleep for ten years and doesn't know who Jim Johnson was or Franklin Raines or Jamie Gorelick or Barney Frank or the others who set off the real estate bubble with the CRA.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]


Are you really that stupid ?

phx said...

The leftwinger nutjobs sure are obsessed with rape.

LOL! That's pretty funny!

ricpic said...

Barack Obama is a vicious prick who hates America but it's been a helluva agonizing decision who to vote for for thoughtful Americans ha ha ha ha ha.

AprilApple said...

You're missing 7 hours, garage. Moving Stevens body -that counts for gold stars in your book? mmkay.

Dave said...

"Althouse said: Then came Benghazi, and a door closed."

That makes no sense at all. Why do you think Colin Powell endorsed Obama? Do you really think he's not aware of the fact that mistakes by the administration may have led to that tragedy? Of course he is. But the story of Libya is still that Gaddafi was overthrown without a fiasco like Iraq. When Obama was described as "leading from behind" it was intended as a compliment of his ability to get other countries to participate in the effort and to minimize loss of U.S. lives and treasure.

So now the death toll from our involvement in Libya is four. It may have been avoidable. But compare it to the tragedy of Iraq when Secretary of State Powell was given false "evidence" which he then presented to the security council and when then President Bush lied about Iraq's non-existent nuclear program. And then when caught the Bush team "outed" an active CIA operative. How many lives were lost - how much money thrown away on Iraq? And Althouse thinks Benghazi is the deal breaker?

That's just as pathetic as people touting Romney's business expertise when in the last days Bloomberg and the Economist have endorsed Obama - and Chrysler and Jeep have both called Romney a liar.

Bob Ellison said...

AReasonableMan, your strange conclusions assume unsupportable findings. But let me suggest that you climb back toward the trunk of the tree; you're getting out on some pretty slim twigs.

Dante said...

Garage:

"Let's say we were able to get an aircraft there. Do you go in and start strafing a populated area without knowing where friend or foe is?" a senior Defense official asked. "If you did that, you could kill the very people you are trying to help."

This is garbage. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFdQClIb2jQ&list=PL6C78F84F0C7F9C24&index=40&feature=plpp_video

There were, at one time, many videos on you tube demonstrating the precision with which the armed forces could kill individuals. Maybe not an individual in a mob, but certainly a mortar encampment.

Bender said...

How Obama and/or the Democratic Party Lost Me:

*Slavery, by either outright advocacy or taking a "pro-choice" position on it
*Seccession
*Segregation
*Socialism
*Social Justice, that is, the policies advanced and implemented by the Dems are and have been the antithesis of authentic social justice, they have contributed to injustice and the destruction of the social fabric
*Racialist and sexist ideology
*Condescending elitism and general contempt for individual humanity combined with their own delusions of their own divinity
*Government paternalism and a plantation mentality
*Class ideology of never-ending us-against-them divisiveness and rancor, forever setting one group against another, encouraging and fostering resentments
*Countless broken homes, broken families, and broken spirits left in their wake, not to mention those 50 million other reasons

Frankly, the first three historical reasons were enough for me to NEVER want to ever be associated with that morally criminal organization.

EMD said...

If only he had a more powerful nation and military at his disposal, they keep letting him down.

I can honestly understand that logistically not being able to put into place military assets to fend off an overwhelming force, if none are within range.

Perhaps there were faster remedies (jet flyovers, the AC-130s that I've read about) but without real boots on the ground in country, it might be hard to mount a force large enough to work.

I take the most issue with the failure to secure our people and property before an after, and the fucking horrible video blame game.

Also, according to the article, why the hell didn't the President see the drone footage?


Bob Ellison said...

I'd like to revise my number-of-comments pool estimate from 421 to 710.

phx said...

and a door closed.

If indeed, there ever was a door.

Amadeus 48 said...

Well done, Althouse. That is why I love you--the rational, inquiring mind, tempered by empathy.
The spectacle of Ambassador Rice (why her?) appearing on all five Sunday talk shows spouting arrant nonsense about Benghazi and the famous video took an evil turn when it became apparent that Team Obama had a lot to be nervous about if the truth came out. Perhaps John Dean is available to assist with that internal investigation.
In any case, it appears that the best case against Obama is teh one he made himself.

EMD said...

ut the story of Libya is still that Gaddafi was overthrown without a fiasco like Iraq

Dave shows his complete ignorance of the governing forces of Iraq, it's history under Hussein, and the societal nature of its inhabitants in one fell swoop.

deborah said...

"U.S. says CIA sent security team to Benghazi consulate 25 minutes after attack, refuting claims of delay"

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/01/173372/us-says-help-was-sent-to-benghazi.html#storylink=cpy




http://www.mcclatchydc
.com/2012/11/01/
173372/us-says-
help-was-sent-to
-benghazi.html

AprilApple said...

While Rome burns, the leftwing nutjobs are running around screaming... "but what about all the rape! The GOP are going to legalize rape!" and other such nonsense.

Let us ponder all the actual rape that took place at all the long forgotten democrat sanctioned OWS camps, shall we? Oh wait - that doesn’t count.

mark said...

@(all the progs phx, garage, inga)

" '. everyone was fully engaged .' a senior intelligence official said"

If everyone was fully engaged, the the entire chain of decision makers from Obama down need to be fired.

If "fully engaged" means the body of an ambassador gets dragged through the streets. Hours of firefights with NO military support.

All requests for more help in the MONTHS before are ignored. You watch everyone else get out of Dodge and you leave your people there unprotected.

You lie and lie and lie on national TV about WHY and WHAT happened.

You avoid all questions and only deflect and talk to The View, Letterman, and The Daily Show.

That "fully engaged" is not a sane person's definition of "fully engaged".

Dante said...

I would be curious to know whether this affects late breaking undecided voters at all. To begin with, I wonder how many are even engaged with the issue. There is a general perception that the election is all about the economy, but how far does an even like Benghazi swing those voters at all? I would think that to the extent that it moves voters, it would move them away from the President, but is that 1000 votes or 100,000?

Frankly, this issue should not be about undecideds. If the press were doing their job, which they are not, this would cause many decideds to change their mind.

AReasonableMan said...

bgates said...
The best defense of Bush on deficits was always that the Democrats would be much worse, as in fact they have been. Any single year of spending under Obama has added as much to the debt as the worst two years under Bush.


This is complete BS. Most of Bush's governance of the economy was conducted under much more favorable circumstances than Obama. Obama inherited the worst financial crisis since the great depression. Personal wealth collapsed thanks to the bursting of the property bubble. There was no way to magically fix this mess. It was always going to take a long slog, whoever was in power.

It would have been much easier if Bush had not previously run up huge deficits with unpaid tax cuts and unnecessary wars, which limited the abilit to respond to the crisis. The huge deficits are due to the collapse of the economy not to prolifigate spending by governments.

Michael K said...

garage mahal said...
"Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

I know this isn't a Newt Gingrich rumor, or a piece from FrontPagMage.com, but still:

U.S. says CIA responded within 25 minutes to Benghazi attack"

"WASHINGTON — CIA security officers in a Benghazi post responded within 25 minutes to a call for help from a nearby State Department compound after it came under attack Sept. 11, officials said Thursday, seeking to refute a Fox News report asserting that CIA managers ordered them to stay put."

garage, that's the LA Times. It is only a step below front page magazine but I would note that it is repeating the story that the two ex-SEALs responded and doesn't refute the story that they went in spite of being ordered to "stand down." For all we know that CIA "official" is an Obama appointed PR person. We have already heard from Petraeus but we haven't heard from Obama.

I will be content when the tapes from the calls for help, or not, are released. We all know what happened, except apparently, you.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
They don't care Garage, their version of what happened is much more appealing to them. Screw the truth, right?


There are 12 contradictory stories out, but a single puff piece supporting Obama is all that's needed to satisfy Inga and garage.

These are not moderates or honest observers.

Patrick said...

We should especially listen to and trust senior administration officials when they remain anonymous.

They have nothing to hide. They speak the truth? Why would they lie? It's not like they lied about a video and threw a guy in jail or anything.

Quit trying to speak truth to power you buys.

Jake Diamond said...

I guess it makes it much easier to think about stuff if you shitcan all the inconvenient facts, such as when the deficits started, 9-11, and when the path back to a balanced budget fell off course

Ok, I know Timmy isn't very bright, and I know that the Althouse lemmings have to make up excuses for Bush's incompetence, but at some point you have to concede that things went terribly wrong during Dunce's time in office. Yeah, I know, in the right wing bubble, poor George was just a spectator on 9/11 and during two wars. And the Bush tax cuts were a really terrific idea that just didn't work out because, you know, a bunch of economic stuff happened.

But the facts aren't debatable. The last Clinton budget produced a 1.3% (of GDP) SURPLUS. The first Bush budget produced a 1.5% (of GDP) DEFICIT, and the last Bush budget produced a 10.1% (of GDP) DEFICIT. Those facts may not penetrate little Timmy's bubble, but they are the facts nevertheless.

AReasonableMan said...

Bob Ellison said...
AReasonableMan, your strange conclusions assume unsupportable findings. But let me suggest that you climb back toward the trunk of the tree; you're getting out on some pretty slim twigs.


Either make a coherent point or shut up.

Bender said...

By the way --

How the GOP lost me or, when I stopped calling myself Republican:

After they won the House in the 1994 elections and Dick Armey insisted that they had not promised to actually pass term limits, only to have a vote on the issue. Of course, then followed candidates like Bob Dole and the general retreat back to an elite, country club, establishment, anti-Reagan party.

Tim said...

Congratulations.

I love seeing people learn from their mistakes.

garage mahal said...

We should especially listen to and trust senior administration officials when they remain anonymous

They were totally fine last night. What changed?

deborah said...

"Of course he is. But the story of Libya is still that Gaddafi was overthrown without a fiasco like Iraq."

And now Kaddafi's weapons are being funneled to sunni Syrian rebels, al-Qaeda included. Is this good or bad?

firstHat said...

@garage
If that news was so solid and legit, why was it published in the OPINION section rather than in the NEWS section? It isn't news, it doesn't jive with what we've been told. It is someone's opinion... or so it seems.

bagoh20 said...

" many of your topics in the past 4 years reflected, I think, profound disappointment in how Obama has governed."

And yet all that did not move her. She was still going to choose that over a man with a lifetime of success, charity and decency, a man with an unparalleled resume' whose record is also one of a moderate who never did anything that's scary to a liberal when he had power, a man who worked well with Democrats. It's indefensible to need Benghazi.

On the other hand, Benghazi should be enough. Regardless of what actually happened, the fact that the President will not inform us of what he absolutely knows and instead willfully lied about just before his reelection disqualifies him for me. At best he is not honest and transparent enough to be reelected, and it looks like it's much worse than that.

Tim said...

Inga said...

"They don't care Garage, their version of what happened is much more appealing to them. Screw the truth, right?"

Truth: No U.S. armed forces were sent to rescue the Americans under attack for seven hours at Benghazi.

Truth: There is no record of any U.S. armed forces being ordered into action to rescue the Americans under attack for seven hours at Benghazi.

Truth: You cannot disprove these facts.

But go ahead, and try.

Nonapod said...

unpaid tax cuts

I've read this phrase before. What the hell does it mean?

Bob Ellison said...

AReasonableMan said: "shut up."

Finally we have it in writing! Shut up, he explained.

The Drill SGT said...

Garage and Inga,

OK, let's assume the article by an unnamed source with an agenda is accurate, now let's see what isn't said:

1. Does this phrase: "At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, refer to within the CIA only, or does "senior officials" extend to the POTUS? If so, why dont they say that?

2. Let's say we were able to get an aircraft there. Do you go in and start strafing a populated area without knowing where friend or foe is?" a senior Defense official asked. Of course they could have gotten a plane there. a very large base is 30 minutes flight time away. It's clear, that a decision was made, not to launch one, just in case it was needed. And it need not carpet bomb the city. A mach 1, low level pass might have bought time.

3. The drone overhead was not armed. . Yeah, the one redirected wasn't armed, but UAVs are mission packaged. They ;aunched a replacement from Sigonella, but just like the jet above, diodn't arm the second one either, so the statement remains true but is potentially misleading. "The Drone overhead was unarmed", happenstance or design?

4. The CIA got reinforcements to Benghazi from Tripoli, why not send others from Sigonella at the same time?

Bender said...

What are you balancing? . . . does it mean a little bit of crime is OK, a little bit of homicide is OK.

Yes, that is it exactly. That is a large proportion of it -- wanting "murder" (the professor's word for it) to remain legal. That little bit of homicide (actually it's been more than a little since 1973) is not merely OK, it is a fundamental right to kill such innocent human life. That's the balance.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Of course, I don't like half of what the Republicans stand for, but I've still voted for some of them,

But if course. Why shouldn't everyone feel the same way?

Here's some of me:

I would legalize gambling, prostitution, and pot.

I have no problem at all with abortion, as long as it is reasonably before the fetus is obviously viable.

I am as strong an atheist as Dawkins or Harris, and yet would go beyond even de Botten in saying that peaceful religions are absolutely indispensable to civil society.

I support a super strong military, to deter aggression.

I and am a Federalist and a Localist, and a fiscal hawk.

I would raise both the drinking and voting age.

I have no issue with private sector unions, but would ban public sector ones.

So called disparate impacts don't bother me in the least. It's as natural as tall people predominating in the NBA.

And I have no problem whatsoever voting for Reagan, Bush, Romney.

What's the big deal?

Inga said...

WaPo,latest on Benghazi

AReasonableMan said...

Nonapod said...
unpaid tax cuts

I've read this phrase before. What the hell does it mean?


It means that if you are going to reduce revenue you also have to reduce spending.

Any other questions?


tim in vermont said...

Jake,
Still no mention in you thinking of who was in control of the budget when that last budget was written I see. But I am in the bubble, not you. I get it.

By the way, your language indicates a little bit of defensiveness, where does the anger come from in the facts are so clearly on your side? It seems like a position where calm discourse would do. Instead you appear to be some kind of congenital asshat.

Amadeus 48 said...

To the lefties in these comments:
Damn! It is Bush's fault! Too bad he isn't running this year. We could all vote against him. We'll have to settle for Obama. He made things even worse. He IS running this year Let's vote against him!

X said...

But the facts aren't debatable. The last Clinton budget produced a 1.3% (of GDP) SURPLUS.


only if you loot the Social Security trust fund, which they did.

Curious George said...

"Marshal said...
Inga said...
They don't care Garage, their version of what happened is much more appealing to them. Screw the truth, right?

There are 12 contradictory stories out, but a single puff piece supporting Obama is all that's needed to satisfy Inga and garage.

These are not moderates or honest observers."

garage lacks intellectual honesty, but Inga is just the dumbest person on the planet.

Matthew Sablan said...

Instead, maybe, "How Romney Found Me?"

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Jake Diamond typed

"Anyone who voted for Bush has lost all credibility on the subject of budget deficits and debt. Your best strategy is to shut up and hope that one day people forget that Bush drove the economy off the cliff."

Ah, the mindless twaddle continues. As if, there were no congress, lobbyists, attacks on US soil, or liberals. Diagnosis: terminal BDS. Take these pain pills and make yourself comfortable, Jake.

Arguably, the position of president is parallel to a CEO position.

As such, it is customary for candidates to have demonstrated leadership and have a *track record* to refer to when considering such a candidate. To this day, Barry's resume' has been protected by millions of dollars in legal fees and court orders. But still we hear 'nothing to see here'. Such is the life of many that construct a protective bubble from reality.

In a country governed by serious people, we would not hear things like 'we must pass the bill to find out whats in it'. Jake Diamond, this is your party, your poster girl for un-reality.

I did not vote for Obama, but after his immaculation, I actually went to a place where I said, OK, I'm going to give this unknown man a chance.

Its not the first time I was originally right, relented in the name of 'sentimentality' projected by others, and was proven right over and over again.

Sentimentality indeed has replaced reason in our age.

McDonald Family said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jake Diamond said...

Before another dozen of the Althouse lemmings repeat the "Bush was asleep at the wheel" defense, let me say that I agree with that assessment. Bush was asleep at the wheel--everyone agrees! IMO it's not an acceptable excuse for the miserable failure of his presidency, but I understand that it's all you have.

Tim said...

Jake Diamond said...

"I guess it makes it much easier to think about stuff if you shitcan all the inconvenient facts, such as when the deficits started, 9-11, and when the path back to a balanced budget fell off course

Ok, I know Timmy isn't very bright, and I know that the Althouse lemmings have to make up excuses for Bush's incompetence, but at some point you have to concede that things went terribly wrong during Dunce's time in office. Yeah, I know, in the right wing bubble, poor George was just a spectator on 9/11 and during two wars. And the Bush tax cuts were a really terrific idea that just didn't work out because, you know, a bunch of economic stuff happened.

But the facts aren't debatable. The last Clinton budget produced a 1.3% (of GDP) SURPLUS. The first Bush budget produced a 1.5% (of GDP) DEFICIT, and the last Bush budget produced a 10.1% (of GDP) DEFICIT. Those facts may not penetrate little Timmy's bubble, but they are the facts nevertheless."


I'm not the Tim you are addressing in your comments, but even if we were to stipulate that all of your "facts" are "true," these two facts are true: 1) Obama is the least qualified man ever elected president (and you will not be able to name one man elected president less qualified than Obama) and, 2) He, objectively, made it worse.

AReasonableMan said...

Amadeus 48 said...
To the lefties in these comments:
Damn! It is Bush's fault! Too bad he isn't running this year.
We'll have to settle for Obama. He made things even worse.


But this is the point, he didn't make things worse. The economy was in free fall when he took over. It takes willful deliberate forgetting to fail to take this into account. In fact the only way he could have made things worse was if his policies had led to a great depression rather than a great recession.

Matthew Sablan said...

Speaking of Benghazi, the point has always been that the administration lied to us about the spontaneous demonstration, railroaded an American citizen into jail for political purposes and mishandled a situation that should have been an easy lay up (provide security months ago, withdraw people from a volatile situation days before a well-telegraphed attack hits, etc.) that instead left four people dead.

Lem said...

When a door closes it doesn’t necessarily mean the plane can’t come back to the gate.

A door leaves the door open for other doors.

Pretty sneaky sis.

Matthew Sablan said...

Reasonable Man: According to Obama, without the Stimulus (had we done nothing) unemployment would be at about the same or lower than what we have had throughout the stimulus. By Obama's own metric, he failed.

Reagan said...

Benghazi should be everyone's Waterloo. The only acceptable response to the crisis was to acknowledge that you did not have significant intelligence to know what the facts and risks were. Then, you immediately commence a military conflict and long drawn-out war or three in the mideast. Good plan.

Brent said...

In response to the CIA timeline:

If true, it is heartening to me in some respects. It means that we at least didn't "stand-down" as reported. But it raises several questions in my mind:

1) This happened on September 11, 2012. Why are we getting this time line nearly two months after the fact, on a Friday (the day you usually release news you want to bury), and a few days before the election? It is enough time to put the matter to rest in most people's minds, but not enough time to allow the media or public to vet the facts and ask additional questions. I can't imagine any more politically based timing than this. If the CIA can't put together a timeline within hours or days, they are more incompetent than I ever imagined.

2) Why were the CIA and Military so out of sync? Explaining why readily available military forces were not used, Penetta said the "basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place." If we had CIA on the ground, actually fighting, why would we not have real time information? Are two groups within our government still completely incapable of communications? I thought we fixed this after the first 9/11. With some central leadership from the White House, this should have not been an issue.

3) Also disturbing - if we had CIA on the ground, then there is absolutely no excuse for the administration or State Department to have blamed the whole thing on the video and a spontaneous riot. If the CIA report is true, they had real time information and choose to play politics instead. Like I said last Sunday, we all knew that this wasn't a spontaneous riot within hours, why did they stick to the story for 14 days, especially after having our own CIA on the ground?

4) Fox News has some explaining to do. Where are these sources that they claim were told to "stand down?" Did they verify their sources? Or just report rumors? They better put up of shut up.

5) Why were we so miserably unprepared? If you had to pinpoint one or two areas of the world where your ambassadors are likely to need heavy protection, Libya would be at the top of your list at this time in history.

As I said, I was happy to see the timeline. This issue rises above politics in my book. But I am left with an uneasy feeling that politics are still being played and that our government is as incompetent as ever.

That liberals are touting the timeline as if it vindicates Obama, I am no surprised. But I thought we had a few liberals here that would put their country above their love for Obama. Will some of you please prove that this is the case?

Colonel Angus said...

What is it with the GOP and mind-numbingly stupid comments about rape..

But was it rape rape?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Inga

I generally do not bother, but in case nobody told you, links are proof of nothing more than your deliberate gullibility.

Inga said...

WSJ, latest on Benghazi

Michael K said...

"That makes no sense at all. Why do you think Colin Powell endorsed Obama? Do you really think he's not aware of the fact that mistakes by the administration may have led to that tragedy? "

Powell has been a politician since he was promoted above major. He has said that he benefitted from affirmative action. I think that happened with his promotions once he made colonel. He saw Obama as another candidate for affirmative action and supported him. I don't think his endorsement means anything other than the endorsements by other black politicians.

The people I respect are those who have decided we can't endure another four years even though they supported Obama in 2008. They have been vilified often but they have shown courage and good sense. Not like Powell.

Darcy said...

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

Well, I thought I didn't care, but I do.

And Amen and Hallelujah.

tim in vermont said...

"But this is the point, he didn't make things worse. The economy was in free fall when he took over. It takes willful deliberate forgetting to fail to take this into account."

It takes a lot of willful ignorance to overlook the business cycle as well. Did Obama invent recoveries or is he just the guy in charge of the worst one in modern history?

Jake Diamond said...

It seems like a position where calm discourse would do. Instead you appear to be some kind of congenital asshat.

Sorry, Timmy. I have no patience with loudmouthed idiots. They don't make suitable partners for "calm discourse." And since you've demonstrated a substantial ignorance of the facts, I'll pass on your generous offer to jabber at me.

phx said...

It takes a lot of willful ignorance to overlook the business cycle as well.

The free-fall of the economy that began under Bush was part of the business cycle.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Reasonable Man: According to Obama, without the Stimulus (had we done nothing) unemployment would be at about the same or lower than what we have had throughout the stimulus. By Obama's own metric, he failed.


This is such predictable bullshit. The numbers you refer to were based on an estimate of the fall in GDP that proved to be wrong. In fact Bush's economy was a much bigger disaster than they had originally believed.

It is hard for me to understand why anyone on the right keeps trotting out this nonsense. All it says is that Bush was a much bigger failure than we thought at the time. If we had known how far GDP was going to fall thanks to his hocus pocus on the economy he would have been tarred, feathered and run out of town as the useless charlatan that he proved to be.

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...

I guess it makes it much easier to think about stuff if you shitcan all the inconvenient facts, such as when the deficits started, 9-11, and when the path back to a balanced budget fell off course

Ok, I know Timmy isn't very bright, and I know that the Althouse lemmings have to make up excuses for Bush's incompetence, but at some point you have to concede that things went terribly wrong during Dunce's time in office. Yeah, I know, in the right wing bubble, poor George was just a spectator on 9/11 and during two wars. And the Bush tax cuts were a really terrific idea that just didn't work out because, you know, a bunch of economic stuff happened.


Too bad diamond doesn't want to check those facts or he'd know the economic stuff was largely the Demos' doing and Dubya tried to shut it down, but the Friend of Angelo and his little handmaiden, Barry, did everything they could to keep that from happening.

And of course, there's only one war, with several campaigns, Lefty propaganda notwithstanding.

But the facts aren't debatable. The last Clinton budget produced a 1.3% (of GDP) SURPLUS.The first Bush budget produced a 1.5% (of GDP) DEFICIT, and the last Bush budget produced a 10.1% (of GDP) DEFICIT.

And the Lefties told us for 65 years that deficits didn't count until it was politically expedient.

But it was the Conservatives who objected loudest to Dubya's spending. Diamond never heard of PorkBusters, I'm sure, but plenty here have.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Jake Diamond typed

"IMO it's not an acceptable excuse for the miserable failure of his presidency, but I understand that it's all you have."

Unfortunately, we ALL are affected by the misgivings of affirmative action.

The election of Teh Won in 2008 was the ultimate statement of affirmative action in the form of sentimentality. To be sure, no one could have lived up to the ridiculous billing he was handed with no track record. NO TRACK RECORD.

Post-modern racism is racism, just the same.

Jake Diamond said...

As if, there were no congress, lobbyists,

Oh, so you don't hold Obama responsible for anything either? Or do you think congress and lobbyists disappeared when Obama was elected?

attacks on US soil

Here's the "Bush was asleep at the wheel" defense again. It's quite pathetic that this is the only excuse Republicans have for Bush's incompetence.

edutcher said...

PS That "surplus" was only in the out years, a theoretical saving as ephemeral as the savings ObamaTax would bring.

MadisonMan said...

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed

When God closes a door, somewhere he opens a window.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The numbers you refer to were based on an estimate of the fall in GDP that proved to be wrong."

-- Or, the Republicans were right that the stimulus would hurt, not help. Both are possible conclusions that we can draw. Judging by the harm that has come from the stimulus, I feel my conclusion is just as valid as: "Obama's too stupid to know what he's doing."

Marshal said...

But this is the point, he didn't make things worse. The economy was in free fall when he took over. It takes willful deliberate forgetting to fail to take this into account

The economy was in free fall, and Obama's priorites were (1) to hand out goodies to Democratic constituencies, and (2) to enable government control of healthcare in a way that degrades care and imposes distortionate economic costs.

Everyone knows the economy was poor when Obama became president. Everyone also knows none of his priorities were to improve the economy. Instead Obama used the economy as an excuse to push through longstanding Democratic Party policy preferences.

Only fools believe concluding Obama's policies didn't help is the equivalent to asserting the economy wasn't in poor shape. But I guess when your priority is supporting leftist politics your ability to make sense is rather limited.

tim in vermont said...

Jake still cannot bring himself to concede that he Democrats had control of spending starting 2006

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=US+Deficit

If you put a dot on the 2006 election, you will see where the curve bent in a bad direction.

But I know you won't click on the link because, well, because you can't stand the cognitive dissonance, is my guess, whatever pitiful excuse you offer.

Jake Diamond said...

these two facts are true: Obama is the least qualified man ever elected president (and you will not be able to name one man elected president less qualified than Obama) and, 2) He, objectively, made it worse.

Timmy #2 - Those aren't facts; they are opinions. Please don't waste my time again.

carrie said...

bagoh20-I think that people cared to know in 2008 but it wasn't reported. The internet changes everything because you don't need to rely upon the MSM. However, there are people like my liberal husband who doesn't want to look beyond the MSM, so if it isn't reported by the MSM, or is spinned by the MSM as being a non-issue, then it didn't happen or isn't important as far as he is concerned. Media bias is a huge problem in this country because people think that they are informed when they aren't.

LilyBart said...


Inga said...
WaPo,latest on Benghazi


Assuming this is true, that means that 100% of the response was from the CIA without help from any other agency. (contradicting what the president said: that he requested everything be done to help).

It also doesn't explain why there was so little security in the weeks and days leading up to the attack, even though a reasonable person could see there was heightened risk, and Stevens and his staff were requesting security and warning of risk.

It also doesn't explain why the Administration spent so much time and effort to paint this as a spontaneous reaction to a silly but vile youtube video.


AprilApple said...

So the latest drip drip drip of information to help the administration cover the lies and incompetency of Benghazi is a notation that there were some CIA agents nearby. But they didn't actually do anything. Got it.



AReasonableMan said...

phx said...
The free-fall of the economy that began under Bush was part of the business cycle?


Exactly. The idea that there was anything normal about the Bush economy is insane. His only excuse is that Alan Greenspan was an even bigger dummy, blinded by ideology and his own arrogance.

harrogate said...

What narcissism this post is. Oh how "fascinating" to plumb the depths and examine the twists and turns of thought, undertaken by someone who ideologically has been aligned with the Republicans all along.

Darcy said...

And amen to that too, MadMan. :)

tim in vermont said...

I can't believe I got sucked into arguing with a sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Serves me right.

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...

attacks on US soil

Here's the "Bush was asleep at the wheel" defense again. It's quite pathetic that this is the only excuse Republicans have for Bush's incompetence.


Gee, I seem to remember attacks on US soil in '93 and attacks on Americans throughout Willie's reign.

The incompetence is on the Demo side. The conditions that led to 9/11 were all fostered in the 90s.

Jamie Gorelick and her impenetrable wall.

Willie wagging the dog - when he wasn't wagging Monica.

Les Aspin and the incredible screw up in Mogadishu.

Dubya prosecuted a War on Terror, Willie and Barry did all they could to ignore it.

Jake Diamond said...

the economic stuff was largely the Demos' doing and Dubya tried to shut it down, but the Friend of Angelo and his little handmaiden, Barry, did everything they could to keep that from happening.

Welcome to life in edutcher's bubble!

Michael K said...

nga said...
WaPo,latest on Benghazi

Inga, that's a rerun of the LA Times story. Who was that "CIA official"?

Obama has pushed the spontaneous demonstration story for weeks and you are ready to accept any evidence of push back. OK. We'll find out the truth after the election but I don't think that story is it.

When Nixon was president this was called "limited hang out" and it didn't work after that election either.

Nonapod said...

It means that if you are going to reduce revenue you also have to reduce spending.

Any other questions?


Forgive my ignorance regarding a common lefty oxymoronic phrase. I forget that it's sometimes hard for you guys to use transparent language when talking about government spending.

Amadeus 48 said...

To AReasonableMan:
I guess two reasonable people can look at the same facts and see them differently. I think two reasonable people could have come up with a stimulus plan that was twice as effective and cost half as much as the one adopted; could have made improvements to the US healthcare system without passing a 2,000 page botch that has created uncertainty as far as the eye can see; could have intead spent two years working on policies that encourage economic growth and employment rather than engaging in a regulatory orgy that stifles growth, innovation and ultimately employment, etc., etc. I take you at your word that you are reasonable, and I know I am, so I think you and I could have done a better job than Obama. He made it worse.

Marshal said...

Jake Diamond said...
Sorry, Timmy. I have no patience with loudmouthed idiots.


The self-loathing must be unbearable.

exhelodrvr1 said...

It's not transparency, it's shallowness.

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...

these two facts are true: Obama is the least qualified man ever elected president (and you will not be able to name one man elected president less qualified than Obama) and, 2) He, objectively, made it worse.

Timmy #2 - Those aren't facts; they are opinions. Please don't waste my time again.


The price of gas has doubled.

Commodities up 50%.

Workforce participation worst since Carter.

Unemployment worse than it was when Dubya left office.

And Diamond is the biggest time-waster here. Facts go right past him.

JL said...

Anyone who voted for Bush has lost all credibility on the subject of budget deficits and debt. Your best strategy is to shut up and hope that one day people forget that Bush drove the economy off the cliff.

Yes, Bush destroyed the economy. Single-handedly, even. Congress had no role at all. They were just a floor show.

We haven't had a budget in over three years; even though for two years the Dems ran everything. That's Bush's fault too. Amazing how much influence that one man still has. But it will no longer be Bush's fault when Romney wins. Only a Republican can break the grip that the evil Bush still has over us!

William said...

A door closes and a window opens. I wouldn't bet the farm on Althouse voting for Romney....Voting for the first Mormon President doesn't have the same emotional satisfaction as voting for our first African-American President.....The subliminal message of the Obama Presidency is that the world's problems are caused by rich white men and that Romney is a rich white man. That message may yet get Obama elected......I don't offer this as a defense of Obama. Things went wrong in Benghazi, and his explanation seems deliberately obfuscatory rather than clarifying. But the dynamics of the middle east are such that things are always going to go wrong. I think Romney will be better for our economy, but that the middle east will continue to be a screwed up place.

Matthew Sablan said...

"someone who ideologically has been aligned with the Republicans all along."

-- Except she hasn't been. Also, it is -her blog.- So, yes. There might be some thinking about her thoughts and ideas.

dreams said...

I have never understood why people can't see Obama for what he is and that is a man largely ignorant of history, especially our USA history, he is basically a socialist anti-American. Obama just doesn't share our love for our country because he doesn't understand America for he didn't grow up here. When he told us that he wanted to transform our country, I knew he meant it.

We elected an affirmative action president while symbolically patting ourselves on the back and thinking about how wonderful we were.
Conservatives weren't fooled by this ignorant anti-American socialist fool and I'm proud to be a conservative.

bagoh20 said...

So I guess the left's hope on Benghazi is that out of all the speculation resulting from the vacuum of the Presidents stonewalling, that maybe they can hang their hat on the eventual proof that the worst of it is not true. He didn't do something disgustingly wrong, but just hopefully incredibly incompetent. I share that hope.

I would greatly prefer that it was just a screw up in communications, a breakdown of equipment, or a logistics failure, anything but what it looks like.

I hope Obama is completely blameless, but of course if he was, he'd show us that now when he needs it most.

Matthew Sablan said...

Remember: For the stimulus to be effective, it needed to be: Targeted, Timely and Temporary. It hit none of those three things.

Jake Diamond said...

The incompetence is on the Demo side. The conditions that led to 9/11 were all fostered in the 90s.

Yes, of course, Republicans are little leaves in the wind. They are powerless to act; they can only complain VERY INSISTENTLY that nothing is their fault, ever!

Which, if you think about it, is the perfect reason to vote Republican.

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...

the economic stuff was largely the Demos' doing and Dubya tried to shut it down, but the Friend of Angelo and his little handmaiden, Barry, did everything they could to keep that from happening.

Welcome to life in edutcher's bubble!


CRA?

Subprime mortgages?

John McCain and Kay Hutchison introducing bills to stop them shot down by Dodd.

Some bubble.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
-- Or, the Republicans were right that the stimulus would hurt, not help. Both are possible conclusions that we can draw.


No. The actual fall in GDP was much bigger than the projected fall. This is a fact not an opinion. Bush's economy was in fact much worse that originally feared. Objectively worse as measured by the final measures of GDP.

Your opinion is that the stimulus hurt is based on an estimate that is not a fact. The facts are different to what you apparently believe.

In fact, most economists believe the stimulus helped avoid a much bigger economic disaster. Maybe you are much smarter than most economists but this is also your opinion, not a fact.

X said...

unpaid tax cuts

I've read this phrase before. What the hell does it mean?


mostly it exposes who you are. if you think a tax cut costs money, you're a pig at the through.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"It also doesn't explain why the Administration spent so much time and effort to paint this as a spontaneous reaction to a silly but vile youtube video."

What this DOES explain is a conscious, willful effort to deflect and distract from whatever it is they DID know at the time. The fact remains, 4 people are dead.

And, there may or MAY NOT actually be someone sitting in a jail cell as a result of supposedly making this alleged video.

This has the signature of complete bullshit written all over it.

Darcy said...

Oh, William. Dang it. You harshed my mellow.

Back to pretending not to care.

tim in vermont said...

"you will not be able to name one man elected president less qualified than Obama"

"that's not a fact, that's an opinion." --Jake


Ha ha ha ha ha. And we are the stupid ones!

Of course you could prove him wrong by simply naming the less qualified guy. But you won't because this is not about rational discourse with you, it is about name calling and shouting with your fingers in your ears.

It is plain for everybody to see Jake.

Brent said...

Lilly said:
Assuming this is true, that means that 100% of the response was from the CIA without help from any other agency. (contradicting what the president said: that he requested everything be done to help).

Plus, there is this from the Daily Beast:

Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of a House oversight subcommittee investigating the Benghazi attacks, told The Daily Beast that General Carter Ham, the outgoing U.S. commander of Africa Command, “told me directly that he had no directive to engage in the fight in Benghazi.” Spokesmen from Africa Command declined to comment for this story.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/new-details-on-benghazi.html

Also from the liberal Daily Beast:
In its seventh week, discussion about what happened in Benghazi has begun to focus on why military teams in the region did not respond to the assault on the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex. The only security backup that did arrive that evening were former special-operations soldiers under the command of the CIA—one from the nearby annex and another Quick Reaction Force from Tripoli. On Friday, Fox News reported that requests from CIA officers for air support on the evening of the attacks were rejected. (The Daily Beast was not able to confirm that those requests were made, though no U.S. official contacted for this story directly refuted the claim either.)

Obama's statement that he asked for everything to be done could not be correct.

Jake Diamond said...

Yes, Bush destroyed the economy. Single-handedly, even.

JL - There's no shortage of idiocy and incompetence in the Republican party. Bush had plenty of help in driving the economy off the cliff.

deborah said...

Why does everyone trust Romney so much? How possible is it that he was a flim-flam man just like Obama? They're both Neoliberals, I'm guessing there won't be much difference in the end.

tim in vermont said...

"Obama's statement that he asked for everything to be done could not be correct."

Stop tugging at the fig leaf!

Jake Diamond said...

Ha ha ha ha ha. And we are the stupid ones!

Ok, Timmy #1 deserves credit for stating a fact.

Matthew Sablan said...

"In fact, most economists believe the stimulus helped avoid a much bigger economic disaster."

-- I've read plenty of reports that seem to conflict. Here's the thing: All the economists who called for the stimulus also thought it would work at the time, then they revised their estimate of how big it needed to be -after- it failed. If your theories cannot be falsified, even by being proven wrong, they are not theories. They are foundationless hopes and dreams.

Pete said...

"Oddly, despite all that work, my commenters have accused me for the last 4 years of having fallen for Obama delusions."

That's almost as laughable as this line:

"I remained open to Obama. Obama could have won me."

After knowing what you knew about Obama, or what you should've known because it was as obvious as can be, you still voted for him. How is that anything but delusional? (But, oddly, it's your readers fault for not seeing that your post was merely an exercise in examining the judging process. Silly readers!)

Look, Althouse, I'm just glad you've finally come around to the right decision. Count me among those who firmly believed you'd stick to your guns about Obama, despite the overwhelming evidence. I'm glad to be proven wrong.

harrogate said...

Matthew,

Yeah, there *might* be some thinking about her thoughts and ideas etc. And there might be commenters that notice preening when they see it, and identify the preening in the comments section.

Put another way, even if I wrote my own blog, I am not sure I would be able to generate that much prose treating my vote for Obama as the culmination of a complex psychological journey. At least, I wouldn't be able to write it out that way, without blushing.

Darcy said...

Bush's overspending was idiocy and incompetence. Obama's overspending is necessary.

Genius!

bagoh20 said...

Carrie,

I agree with all that, but "bagoh20-I think that people cared to know in 2008 but it wasn't reported." while true, does not justify voting for someone with no record of success nor experience running anything. If a guy has a blank resume', and refuses to give his education record, then you just hire someone else. That someone else has to be incredibly bad to justify a blind choice. While I didn't like McCain at all, he was not bad enough to justify that risk. It was irresponsible.

tim in vermont said...

Jake,
Only an Obama supporter could be so utterly bereft of a sense of irony.

Still no comment on the inconvenient 2006 election, I see.

marshall2twr said...

But the facts aren't debatable. The last Clinton budget produced a 1.3% (of GDP) SURPLUS. The first Bush budget produced a 1.5% (of GDP) DEFICIT, and the last Bush budget produced a 10.1% (of GDP) DEFICIT. Those facts may not penetrate little Timmy's bubble, but they are the facts nevertheless.

Lets compare those budgest with the Obama budgets shall we?

.........

Oh, thats right, no budget now for how many years?

tim in vermont said...

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=US+Deficit

AReasonableMan said...

X said...
unpaid tax cuts

I've read this phrase before. What the hell does it mean?

mostly it exposes who you are. if you think a tax cut costs money, you're a pig at the through.


No. It exposes the fact that you understand that revenues have to match outlays in order to remain solvent in the long term. Bush apparently skipped that lesson at Yale.

Chuck66 said...

Deborah, understand what you are saying, but I think Romney is a closet RINO with character. He has no Billy Ayres or Rev'd Wrights, or pot and cocaine in his background.

Jake Diamond said...

Of course you could prove him wrong by simply naming the less qualified guy. But you won't because this is not about rational discourse with you, it is about name calling and shouting with your fingers in your ears.

Timmy #1 - I know you are a silly little right winger, so I will explain this to you once: there is no generally accepted standard for rating qualifications to be president. The fact that you don't understand this very simple point means that you don't have the mental capacity to discuss qualifications.

However, if you are desperate for my attention, you can tell me where you personally think Sarah Palin ranks in terms of qualifications to be VP. I expect to be amused.

Chuck66 said...

AP....I agree with you in principle. If we cut taxes, then we must cut spending (actually cut the rate of increase).

But the reverse is true also. Everytime a liberal says we must raise taxes, you know all the extra money that may be brought in will just get pissed away on stupid stuff by the gov't.

tim in vermont said...

Nor, tellingly, has Jake posited even one former president less qualified than Obama for our consideration.

This is not an opinion Jake, I know you have problems with the distinction, what with your anger management issues and all, but it is a fact. You haven't.

phx said...

If your theories cannot be falsified, even by being proven wrong, they are not theories. They are foundationless hopes and dreams.

They can't be falsified in the sense that we can't go back in time and try it another way.

Neither can any one falsify the argument that Obama has been worse for the economy than any other options.

AprilApple said...

10:51 Bagoh. I agree. However, I cannot get past the administration's bizarre 4 week media push that "it was all just a spontaneous mob, angered by a video".
"The video the video the video..."

That alone makes the whole thing smell. Where's the honesty and transparency?

Matthew Sablan said...

"However, if you are desperate for my attention, you can tell me where you personally think Sarah Palin ranks in terms of qualifications to be VP."

-- Reform-minded mayor and governorship is actually a decent-ish resume. So... uh, what about the thing we were actually talking and asking you about?

Jake Diamond said...

Still no comment on the inconvenient 2006 election, I see.

Yeah, I'm going to pass on your invitation to discuss your nutty theories. The election of 2006 didn't change anything fundamental about the budgeting process, about the Bush tax cuts, or about the fiscal burdens created by Bush previous to the election. Your willingness to point at a single point on a chart and say "Eureka! This explains everything about the economic disaster of the Bush presidency" shows how ignorant you are of economics.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Neither can any one falsify the argument that Obama has been worse for the economy than any other options."

-- Actually, Obama's own metrics prove that he was worse than doing nothing.

bagoh20 said...

"Why does everyone trust Romney so much? How possible is it that he was a flim-flam man just like Obama?"

Both men now have a record, Just read it and decide. Peoples' records pretty much continue on in a relatively predictable line after adulthood. Their character, values, and priorities are already pretty well set, and their records demonstrate their ability to express those in action. If you learn those facts, and then decide based on them, you have at least made a responsible attempt.

tim in vermont said...

"I know you are a silly little right winger, so I will explain this to you once: there is no generally accepted standard for rating qualifications to be president."

Now there is an admission, I will give you that, that you refuse to defend the indefensible. OK, name one less accomplished.

Jake Diamond said...

This is not an opinion Jake

Ok, Timmy. You've proven several times now that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion. I applaud your consistency but you should let it go now. I'm not interested in training you.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 483   Newer› Newest»