October 16th Presidential Debate - Part 2

More on Benghazi and a Few More Details


I did some fact checking, and was still confused (are you surprised?).  But let me mention a few things I found.  Often, the accumulation of minutiae can lead to a decision.

I watched several days of CBS evening news to catch up on events, and was a bit surprised that they were doing a bit of fact-checking, so I took notes.  Of course, they were careful to report an equal number of errors by each candidate.  But here are a few news items, fact-checks, and my observations.

I don't put much stock in the polls, especially when things are so close, and so fast-changing.  But I have questions.  If 65% to 34% say Romney is better on the economy, and the economy is the main issue, why do the polls show the election as even?

Most of the commentators said the debate was combative, and made a big repeated issue of it.  I felt it was lively, with very strong differences and disagreements, but I saw NO signs that either candidate might hit or push or even touch the other in any negative way.  But that's not to say they weren't both rude.

Regarding the "binders of women," I think both men will be helpful to women in jobs, but in different ways.  Just read their party platforms.  Overall, I think the president that fixes the economy will help women's pay the most.As they say, a rising tide raises all boats.  In economics, some boats rise higher than others, and that is better than all boats going down.

Now here's more that has come out on the Benghazi issue.  It's details, but I think it reveals one's character and integrity - this time about Obama.

In the debate, Romney accused Obama of misleading us about the cause of the attack, and Obama denied it, saying that he said, on the day after the attack, that it was an act of terror.  When Romney tried to verify that Obama was really claiming that, Obama looked at the moderator (Crowley) and said to her, "Get the transcript."  Now, when I was watching the debate, I thought Obama said to Romney something to the effect of 'If you get the transcript you will see that I'm correct.'  But in watching a replay, I saw that Obama was looking at Crowley, gestured to her as he spoke, and that she already had a copy of the transcript in her hand, and quickly jumped in to support Obama, saying that he was correct, that he had indeed said that.  That seemed to take the wind from Romney's accusation.

However...  On CBS News, the next day I think, Jan Crawford exposed the truth about Obama's statement.  The truth is that in the Rose Garden he said, "No act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation" but he indicated earlier in that statement that the attack was due to demonstrations against the YouTube video.  And Ambassador Rice and others in the administration continued for 5 days to attribute the attack to spontaneous demonstrations against the video.  This story is documented very well at several places:
CBS News video:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n&tag=showDoorFlexGridLeft;flexGridModule
NewRepublic (succinct text article):
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2946658/posts
NewsBusters (transcript of the whole news item):
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/10/18/cbss-crawford-exposes-obamas-deception-benghazi-attack
Susan Rice on Meet The Press
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133344n

Another aspect of this issue is Obama's apparent premeditated collusion with Crowley to disprove Romney's valid accusation.  First, it was not appropriate for the moderator to be involved in doing fact-verification during the debate.  At first, I thought she just was caught up in the moment and tried to settle a dispute to move the debate forward.  The video replay revealed that she had the transcript in hand, and that Obama knew she had it - clearly premeditated collusion.  To me, this is more than being vague with numbers;  it's just plain blatant deception, both in the debate and in the media presentation of the causes of the attack.

Other observations:
Romney seemed to be ready with his points and facts (such as he had).  Obama had to think a while and preface with history or stories.  I would think that as current President, he would have his facts on the tip of his tongue.

Romney talked about supporting free trade.  I'm not sure that is a good thing.  Central America is so different from the U.S. in its cost of labor that there would need to be tariffs to equalize prices (level the playing field).  Originally, most or all of the federal government's income was from tariffs.  It certainly helped us become self sufficient.  I know the world is different now, but maybe tariffs have a place in the mix.

Obama had a quotable quote: "Weapons for soldiers don't belong on the streets" or something very close to that.  I'm almost certain he meant that "assault rifles" don't belong in the hands of ordinary citizens.  Sounds good.  But casual quotes can lead to harmful mindsets.  My wife often says, "If it's not working, don't do it harder."  At first it made sense, until I realized that some things weren't working because I wasn't doing them hard enough, or long enough. 

The right to keep and bear arms was put into the Constitution to enable the citizens to protect themselves not so much against crime as against an oppressive government (as they had just done against the British).  If the government (soldiers) have "assault rifles" and even heavy weapons, then it makes sense that the citizens are authorized to have them also.  There are dangers of citizenry misusing their power, but there are greater dangers of the government doing the same.  Look around the world; governments and criminals will have guns, and when the citizens do not, they suffer greatly.

If you want to dig further into the economics issues and claims, check out some of these links below.  As I've read a bit on them, I've found both meaning and overload.  But I do learn a bit from most attempts to understand.  I've listened to both of the people referenced below and they make sense and seem to be not particularly partisan.

Wikipedia article on Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget    a public policy think tank
    President:    Maya MacGuineas
    http://crfb.org

Wikipedia article on David Walker (Former Comptroller General of the United States; Author of 'Comeback America')
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_%28U.S._Comptroller_General%29

Comeback America Initiative (David M. Walker, Founder & CEO)
    http://keepingamericagreat.org/

Hope this has been informative.  Since time is getting short for voting, things may get more abbreviated and to the point.  My own opinions are getting more focused as I collect and digest more and more information.  I expect I'll be adding a lot more links and less narrative.

"Thatch"