Brian,

I don't want to quote and end up with an excessively long post but I disagree with you on Libya. One of the things that both politicians and the media do extremely well is claim what the American people or the public wants, as if they have their finger on the pulse of the entire nation. IA with everyone who says that Libya is not an issue because it's way too complicated. Just like the gun program over which Darrell Issa was intent on destroying Eric Holder. Those issues are way too complex for the average voter.

And I can't believe you take Mitt Romney not "hitting Obama hard on Libya" as telling anything more than his not wanting to get his foot stuck in his mouth, since it went poorly for him the times he did try to make it an issue. The way I saw it yesterday, Mitt Romney was encouraging people to vote early for him in hopes of influencing the media narrative in a way that would make him look like he was winning. I suppose he hopes that will get more voters on his side but that's not the narrative being told as of this moment. It's a far cry from his victory cheer of the prior week. It's his own "Field of Dreams."

I don't know about Michael Moore but how is what the "panicked Liberals" saying any different from their normal criticisms of Mitt Romney? I might have overlooked his campaign rally turned relief effort--whether genuine or not if it weren't so blatantly political. His staff went to Walmart and purchased $5,000 worth of granola bars, etc. to make sure their donation truck look full and they handed bars to attendees to make it seem as if those individuals donated them. That's not bashing--that's revealing.

Not only does Mitt Romney look bad for lying about Jeep and those 15,000 jobs he claims would be shipped to China (as if he's never been part of anything like that himself), but he looks particularly bad for the position he took regarding privatizing FEMA.

Anyone paying attention to this disaster should wonder what would happen to all those people if the only solution they could count on was people donating canned goods and granola bars instead of assistance from the federal government.

All surprisingly cynical from you, Wales...

Rather than argue the merits of all that you have said, I'll sit back and wait and watch to see what happens.

The fact of the matter, however, is that there is no excuse for the so-called mainstream media to sit on this Libya story and barely report on it. The facts are out there... check them out for yourself.

Unless you have a scandal that's easy to understand, people are less likely to follow. The main scandal people are interested in is sex. Even stuff like Abu Ghraib ultimately did not impact the elections that year.

Carl, what scandal is easy to understand? Point to me a scandal where nobody tried to cover anything up and truth and fact were laid bare for all to see...

Come on... But like I said to Wales, let's watch and wait and see what comes out. The families of those dead heroes who defied the "stand down" order won't rest until these questions are answered. You probably won't get truth until Obama is out of office... he's covering something up. He won't answer questions. What do YOU think that means?

All surprisingly cynical from you, Wales...

Rather than argue the merits of all that you have said, I'll sit back and wait and watch to see what happens.

The fact of the matter, however, is that there is no excuse for the so-called mainstream media to sit on this Libya story and barely report on it. The facts are out there... check them out for yourself.

I'm not sure how I'm being cynical. If you're referring to my position on Mitt Romney's "relief" contributions then it's no different from what I would say about anyone else who did the same thing and it's pretty much in line with whatever else I've said about people in general. They could have donated the money to the Red Cross or a relief agency instead of buying goods to make their candidate appear "charitable" in a crisis. Expressing concern and offering prayers would have sufficed. Staging takes us back to the story that Paul Ryan was washing clean pots at a soup kitchen. That comes across as manipulative in the worst way.

Please don't mistake a comment about the average voter not caring about Libya as the equivalent of saying the situation was handled adequately. Pointing out Mitt Romney's inability to communicate effectively on that topic is not equivalent to saying it was handled adequately either.

Since I don't know all the details I am not in a position to judge. Nor do I believe that all security related issues should be up for public consumption, if it threatens security.

After re-reading my post, I am absolutely certain that I don't know what your definition of cynical is.

Was I supposed to gloss over Mitt Romney's lies about Jeep?

And I can pretty much dismiss Jeb Bush's attempt at trying to downplay FEMA by saying that it's all in the hands of the local and state governments. Is that his way of taking any blame of his brother for his team''s response to Hurricane Katrina?

Anyone who wants to know "the truth" about Libya can always tune into Fox cable news. Other media outlets will probably spend the greater portion of their coverage on storm reporting so I'm going to assume that only the people who are really burning up about Barack Obama want the focus to be on Libya right now.

The reason Romney has backed off Libya is because clear-headed, incisive reporting on Libya has proven there is nothing there. The CIA has backed that up. A series of unfortunate coincidences and yes, possible security failures, and a national tragedy. But not a cover-up or a gross failure from any department. The other reason is because every time Mitt has tried to go there he has humiliated himself and looked like a fool. Starting in September, and capped off with the second debate. After that, you couldn't get him to say Benghazi on TV with a cattle prod to his nuts. The Republican Congress also doesn't want to explain why they cut embassy security funding.

In the right-wing noise bubble you can get away with the endless conspiracies into conspiracies based on no real evidence. You can get away with gleefully reprinting pictures of Chris Stevens' ashen corpse being dragged through the streets and claiming without proof that the Libyan citizens were not taking him to shelter, but instead off to mutilate his body after - this is actually part of the RW coverage - raping him before his death. And maybe that will even work for you in a Republican primary. But it doesn't work in the national race, or in the national eye. It's a paranoid right wing fantasy of a Jimmy Carter reprise, 24, xenophobia and homophobia all wrapped in one insane package. It just doesn't work in the light of day, and that's why the nation has rejected it. It's a loser. But Rush Limbaugh and Drudge and Breitbart say it's still hot, even when America has forcefully rejected it. They never get out of the bubble and take an honest look at the state of the nation. That is why they lose.

Edited October 31, 201213 yr by Vee

Romney staged a "relief" event for Hurricane Sandy. Can he get any more fake?

http://www.theatlant...ef-event/58529/

Mitt Romney was really concerned that his "Storm Relief Event" in Kettering, Ohio yesterday would look like a dud, so he and his team stocked their donation tables with $5,000 worth of supplies at Walmart. The props, according to Buzzfeed's McKay Coppins, were things like granola bars, canned food, and diapers which were strategically placed to make sure that the photographs taken at Romney's "Storm Relief" campaign didn't a show very un-busy, un-stocked relief table (what else do you expect when you give people short notice to donate their canned goods?). But ... but ... look at how pretty all those fake donations look:

And apparently, the event was so manufactured that they allowed supporters to use the donations which were bought by the campaign, to donate back to the campaign. According to Coppins:

Empty-handed supporters pled for entrance, with one woman asking, "What if we dropped off our donations up front?"

The volunteer gestured toward a pile of groceries conveniently stacked near the candidate. "Just grab something," he said.

Two teenage boys retrieved a jar of peanut butter each, and got in line. When it was their turn, they handed their "donations" to Romney. He took them, smiled, and offered an earnest "Thank you."

I see that the mainstream media's narrative about Romney "momentum" is finally receding as the attacks on Nate Silver have been beaten back and none of the media want to be wrong on election day.

I saw Jeb complaining the President blames his brother. Totally made me laugh. His brother and father will go down as two of the worse presidents. They both marched the country into horrible recessions by insisting on their wrong headed policies and 9/11 happened on his brother's watch. You just know that corrupt Jeb will be running for president in four years time. He and his friends plundered the retirement fund of Florida state employers trying to bail out their friend Ken Lay and Enron causing millions of losses.

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

Carl, what scandal is easy to understand? Point to me a scandal where nobody tried to cover anything up and truth and fact were laid bare for all to see...

Easy to understand - Lewinsky. Gennifer Flowers.

I guess some complicated scandals can still inflict Presidential pain, but I think the era of Watergate is long over. If that happened today, I think it would get more of a shrug. Many are just burnt out and don't want to care. And with Libya, after ten years of Middle East misadventures, it's just a blur.

There's a reason Rove had the big TV moments like Saddam's statue being pulled down the Mission Accomplished fiasco. He knew what got attention.

Another day, another odd, dismissive comment about rape and pregnancy by rape. And another new hero for the true believers.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/john-koster-the-rape-thing.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

The infamous "heckuva job Brownie" has weighed in to blast Obama's handling of Sandy. (no comment on Libya, as far as I can tell)

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/264845-bushs-brownie-criticizes-obama-on-sandy

Chris Christie is playing this very well. Not only does he get media coverage, which he loves, but he also gives Romney something of a black eye by going around with Obama. Either Christie is miffed over not being chosen as VP or he's hoping to clear a path for 2016.

Christie knows Romney can't win. He's positioning himself as the lone moderate Republican in 2016 (though Jon Huntsman is far superior). Get ready for a "Biggest Loser" weight loss saga, too, I'll bet. He's a smart man.

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by Vee

Christie is no fool. He is knows that it is over for Romney. Christie is positioning himself for reelection as governor next year and a presidential run in 2016.

I think the Middle East has just become a big blur for Americans to be honest. And while its perhaps a little cynical to say this, I think many see anyone serving there by their choices, that their fate is in their own hands, since it is a less safe part of the world. Im not excusing it, i just think its a pretty common mentality. It doesnt mean people dont grieve or feel sorrow when something tragic happens, but its all become relative. Service men and women are different, as they are perceived as more of the "common man", with limited control over where they are sent to serve and what "wars" this country chooses to participate in.

As for it being a big scandal, weren't Whitewater and Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky considered great scandals, but out of those 3, I'll bet many Americans don't or didn't have a clue what Whitewater was about but they sure as hell knew the details of the sex scandals. And at the end of the day, none of it mattered. The American people loved Clinton and for the most part, tired of all of it and had no interest in seeing him impeached (which turned out to be a non event) or booted out of office.

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by JaneAusten

In the universe of media exaggeration one of HuffPost's front page stories used this to get attention World Series Champ Wears Controversial Shirt. The actual story headline is different. And it's apparently controversial because 1 out of the 27 tweets they included in their story, questions mixing sports with politics.

Um...wow. And this man will likely still win.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/11/bro-house-candidate-bentivolio-mentally-unbalanced-147994.html?hp=l4

Chuck Hagel is endorsing Bob Kerrey. Not sure it will make any difference, although the pissy statement from Mike Johanns does the party no favors.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpkr70FCZasQBGCx3nyi4yuFGgNA?docId=849a28708f1e4b3a90ea3cef012af0cd

Bloomberg endorses Obama. Another rat off that sinking ship. First, Pawlenty, now Christie and Bloomberg using Sandy as safe passage off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nyregion/bloomberg-endorses-obama-saying-hurricane-sandy-affected-decision.html?hp