The Second Debate

...and yes I just finished  watching - as some or many of you - the second debate between Obama and Romney. The two post-debate polls (CNN and CBS) gave it to the president. And I would agree. But wait. Obama won in style, as far as his oratory rhetoric and debate mannerisms - albeit feisty and aggressive at times. Substantively, Romney won. For you Obama-ites, go back and read the above polls especially CNN's on questions like who they (respondents) believe would handle the economy better - Romney wins by almost 20 points. Who would better handle the deficit - Romney wins. Who would better handle health care - Romney wins, and who would better handle jobs - Romney wins. So you ask, why did Obama come out on top in the polls - AGAIN, it's his traditional debate-like style, being more aggressive (which was expected due to his lackluster performance in the first debate) and sometimes seemed feisty which to most people, unfortunately, was un-presidential.

Obama was obviously angry on the Libya question. And although Romney did not capitalize on the exchange, and seemed to have been weaker - with the help of the moderator (thanks Crowley), - the truth is that Obama was cunning and conniving (and I'm sure this will be clarified in the next debate which will be on foreign policy exclusively). The Libya attack is going to get worse in the next few days and weeks, and will likely be Obama's Achilles' heel.

So here's the scenario. From the beginning, the Obama administration has consistently and blatantly claimed that the attack (which killed the Ambassador and other Americans) was a direct result of the now well known Youtube video, which also triggered the protests in Egypt.

The day after the attack, Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden at the White House and mentioned "acts of terror" - not as the cause of the Libya attack, but in a general context of terrorist attacks on America, especially abroad. (That's what Romney failed to address effectively.) Why is that THE TRUTH? Well, a few days and even a week after the Libya attack, Susan Rice the US ambassador to the UN, said the attack was a result of the video. Even Obama when he addressed the UN days after the attack mentioned the Youtube video several times. And if that's not enough evidence of blatant lies, Obama appeared on "The View" and was specifically asked if it was a terror attack, and he said, they're not sure, it's still under investigation (the video of this exchange is available on Youtube). WOW! WOW! ...is all I can say.

And worse, even before the Obama administration FINALLY admitted that it was a terrorist attack, weeks after the attack, they had also concocted that it was a protest outside the embassy that attacked the embassy and was therefore SPONTANEOUS. The truth? There was NO PROTEST.

And so Obama and his pundits will stick to the words "act of terror", verbatim, in the Rose Garden as defense to Romney's charge.  The problem is the words were used in a different context, NOT as the chief cause of the attack.  Fact checkers are on Romney's side on this one.
Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just a few days ago, in order to protect Obama OBVIOUSLY, stepped in and said she is solely responsible, not the president. Ironically, Obama said in the debate tonight that he is responsible. There's a lot more on this cover up by Obama and his administration, and will be revealed in the next few days and weeks leading up to the election. Stay tuned.

Obama therefore told Romney tonight with an angry and feisty direct glare, that he and his administration are offended by his (Romney's) claims of the inconsistencies in the Libya embassy attack. Romney decided not to respond. But if I were Romney, here's my suggested response to that "offensive" statement by Obama:

"Mr. President, if you are offended, I'd like to inform you that the people of America, the ones who put you in the White House, are MORE OFFENDED at the deception and fabrication that have characterized your administration's version of events before, during and after the attack on THEIR EMBASSY in Benghazi."

If you watched the debate closely, Obama had NO answers for his failed promises, pathetic and poor record as pointed out by Romney

• more people (in the tens of millions) on foodstamps than when he took office
• has incurred more debt ($5 trillion) in four years than Bush's eight years - in fact, and all other presidents combined
• twenty three million people out of work
• gas prices have gone up above 100% since he took office
• the average income per family has dropped by about $4000
• the economy growth was less this year than last year, and was less last year than the year before, etc., etc.,
• prices on everything have gone up higher than any time before
• health care costs are already rising and will be even higher when Obamacare is fully implemented

 Finally, I would say that Obama is big on oratory rhetoric, platitudes and words, and as cliched as this sounds, it is still true, effective and applicable in Obama's first term: "Actions SPEAK LOUDER than words."

Better still, this statement by Bobby Jindal (governor of Louisiana) after the debate sums up the debate eloquently and effectively, "You can combine the speaking skills of Presidents Reagan, Lincoln and Winston Churchill…and you still couldn't defend his record."

...good night!

UPDATE:
Did Laura Ingraham read my blog? LOL!  Tonight (Oct 17th, and some 20 hours later) she was on O'Reilly and she was interviewed by Bill.  On the Benghazi issue during the debate, Laura said that Romney should have responded to Obama's "offensive" comment and should have told him that "the American people are offended." (I'll post a reference or video when I find it.)  Ok, click  here
And Candy Crowley, the CNN moderator, has now admitted that she was wroooong on Libya and Romney was right!  ...Duuuhh!