HOWEVER, since AT BEST for Obama it is debatable that he actually called the Benghazi attack a “terrorist attack” or an “act of terror,” he was being a FOOL to even attempt such a trap.

(By the way, I would not be surprised if he and his minions did plan this trap.)

You are too kind. They inhabit a place where monsters roam freely and devour the unborn and the born alike. They are willing imbeciles who will gladly and with glee man the ovens; convinced in their certainty that they are the master race.

I’m no thespian but I did participate in four or five high school plays. When Obama made that odd statement it was clear – – even to me – – that he was working from a script of some sort; he was acting a role he’d rehearsed in advance.

But it was more than that: he recited this line — setting the trap that Neo mentions — but delivered the line badly because he couldn’t hide the thrill of seeing that Romney was unwittingly taking the bait! It was unnatural, almost wooden, no? With a hint if that Obama smirk lurking behind his eyes? And I think that Romney became wary at that point, realizing — too late?– that something was about to go badly wrong.

This — or a variation of it — was planned in advance.

A succinct summation. It was a strange ‘debate’. But it is no coincidence that so far the ‘moderators’ have given the democrat candidates more speaking time and interrupted the republican candidates more often. And, I have no doubts about Candy collaborating with Obama. This sort of thing doesn’t happen out of the blue.

The whole thing was just strange.

As I wrote yesterday:

The camera zooms in on Obama as the president says to Romney “Please proceed, Governor,” and then cuts away just after the fleeting ghost of a faint smile crosses Obama’s face (mostly in his eyes…)

I think Obama’s manner is even stranger than his words. It’s a combination of hatred, triumph, coldness, and arrogance.

As far as the larger picture, it hurt the president. It is something that reporters like, i.e. devoid of real importance and about themselves.

The questions were definitely biased in favor of the president; however, I thought that helped Romney since he needs to convince moderates. I liked the George Bush question. I once attended one of those townhall programs that CNN used to do in the ’90s. They ask what question you are going to ask and decide who gets to ask the question as well as what gets asked. I’m sure that the artful dodger would agree that it is very manipulative.

Two questions I would have liked for them to ask are:
When the banks were struggling in 2008, the government raised the capital requirements on the banks and politically discouraged them from from writing off, i.e. forclosing, the real estate loans, which forced the banks to find other loans to cancel or forclose, which ended up being small firms and manufacturing firms, so they could keep those non-performing loans on their books. Why do you feel the real estate loans are better investments for the banks and for the country as a whole?

Basil I had been implemented in the late 90s and early 2000s, and Basel II, the large European banking regulation was required to go into effect for all of the major banking institutions including the investment banks. Basel I encouraged banks to invest in particular type of investments, while Basel II encourage the banks to have a better process to measure the risk of their investment portfolios. Outside of just the sheer size or number of pages, what was the underlying structural issue that needed and was resolved with the financial regulation?

Those would not have made it through the censors.