Black President Pulls Rope a Dope on Rich White Guy “Please Proceed Governor” or …Obama Punks Romney

Next time someone says to you, “Please proceed Governor,” check yourself. If you are Romney and that someone is a Black man, STFU.

Someone on Team Liar needs to be fired….after Romney.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The full transcript of the remarks is online, but of particular interest was the president’s vow of “justice” in Libya.

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said. “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

The president made no reference to the campaign, politics, or his domestic opponents.


  1. #1 by brewski on October 17, 2012 - 5:34 am

    “The White House first suggested the attack was spontaneous — the result of an anti-Muslim video that incited mobs throughout the region.
    “Let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said on September 14.
    When ABC News pressed Carney on whether that included the Benghazi attack, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American men were killed, Carney said, “we certainly don’t know. We don’t know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”
    On THIS WEEK on September 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said, “our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.””

    ABC News

  2. #2 by cav on October 17, 2012 - 7:32 am

    Promoting the full arc of instability…is more of the same-old,-same-old need to maintain our ranking in weapons sales. Corporate, imperialist operating principles.

    I just don’t thing we’re having THAT any more.

  3. #3 by brewski on October 17, 2012 - 9:31 am

  4. #4 by cav on October 17, 2012 - 9:59 am

    Terrorist attack and demonstration on the same day.

    This is too puzzling for the wingers to grasp.

    Nor do the grasp that many people in Libya marched in the streets in sympathy to the US – demanding that the militias disarm.

    But it’s silly season, so haul it out.

  5. #5 by Gauleiter Burgen on October 17, 2012 - 10:11 am

    Das it ja Mist cav…. that isn’t how it went people are there and the admins narrative is a total lie.

  6. #6 by cav on October 17, 2012 - 10:27 am

    Do Tell.

    My wiki-leaks connection is down for some reason. Grrr.

    The only nub of a coherent thought that could be buried somewhere in their various spittle-flecked conniption fits is the idea that there was a period of time when the Administration knew or should have known that this event was unrelated to the protests, and they kept saying that it was in the media. They haven’t actually proven that this is true, but I think it’s fair to say that the Administration has not been focused on providing a specific answer to that question. I don’t think they should be worrying about that; they should worry about figuring out the security failure and catching the people who did this. But to a Fox-addled brain this hole in the Administrations public comments on this topic warrants impeachment.

  7. #7 by Richard Warnick on October 17, 2012 - 12:09 pm

    Romney fell into the same trap as a lot of righties – believing their own propaganda.

    What was worse, he was trying to make a cheap partisan shot right after President Obama lectured him on the serious responsibilities of a Commander-in-Chief.

    Romney was asking for a real-time fact check, and he got one. The audience applauded (even though they weren’t supposed to).

    The Debate’s Benghazi Moment: America Cheers the Media Correcting the Record

    After Obama says “Get a transcript,” and you think this will have to play out later in dueling fact-checks, Candy Crowley gets involved. She corrects the record, the way a journalist might, coming in on the side of the truth. And that’s what prompted the audience, made up of 80-odd undecided voters, to cheer. They cheered because it’s been so long since a media figure decided not to balance an argument with the utmost objectivity, but to actually call balls and strikes. The audience cheered a media personality doing her job, paying attention and forcing a politician to reckon with the truth rather than bluster on with his talking point. It’s so rare, the public is so starved, that they let out a burst of spontaneous emotion.

  8. #8 by brewski on October 17, 2012 - 12:54 pm

    Except she admits Romney was right. See #3.

  9. #9 by Richard Warnick on October 17, 2012 - 12:59 pm

    I watched that video, it was pure word salad.

    Romney was NOT right, Crowley knows it. But she committed an act of journalism on live TV, and the CNN bosses probably told her to take it back! (er, “add balance”)

  10. #10 by brewski on October 17, 2012 - 1:30 pm

    “And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.”
    B. Hussein Obama
    September 25, 2012

    14 days after the murder of the 4 Americans!!!

  11. #11 by Richard Warnick on October 17, 2012 - 3:48 pm


    Benghazi = consulate
    Cairo = embassy

    President Obama was clearly able to keep track of developments across the Middle East. The right-wing blogosphere, not so much.

  12. #12 by Richard Warnick on October 17, 2012 - 4:02 pm

    Conservatives assail debate moderator Candy Crowley

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Crowley overstepped her bounds in trying to fact check the candidates.

    “When you have two candidates disagreeing, it’s not the role of the moderator to say, ‘Mr. President, you’re right’ or ‘Gov. Romney, you’re right,'” he told Crowley on CNN Wednesday.

    …Crowley isn’t offering apologies. Though she initially seemed to backtrack on her Libya fact check, suggesting that Romney was “right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” she later maintained that she had not in fact done so.

    If the candidates disagree about a readily verifiable fact, then why not fact-check?

  13. #13 by brewski on October 17, 2012 - 4:30 pm

    In 3 debates, Democrats have gotten a total of 8 minutes, 52 seconds more time. Each debate has given the Democrat more time.

  14. #14 by brewski on October 17, 2012 - 4:34 pm

    Yes, by all means, let’s fact check. We should have stopped the debate in the first minute when Obama lied like the lying liar he is about Romney’s position on GM. In fact, Romney’s position was exactly what Obama ended up doing 7 months later. Romney never took any position which was any different than what Obama did and would not have thrown 1 million people out of work. Lying is not presidential. He should resign now.

  15. #15 by cav on October 17, 2012 - 4:46 pm

    Yes dear.

  16. #16 by Richard Warnick on October 17, 2012 - 5:49 pm

    President Obama explained what everybody ought to know by now. When Romney said, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” he meant it literally.

    Steven Rattner, the “auto czar” who helped the Obama administration craft its rescue, has maintained that leaving the auto makers to the private market would have been a disaster for Detroit and the larger economy. In his own op-ed in the Times on the subject, Rattner said earlier this year that Romney’s plan amounted to “utter fantasy.”

  17. #17 by cav on October 17, 2012 - 6:09 pm

    ‘Utter Fantasy’ (not forgetting the ball-busting preponderance of FEAR) is pretty much where the conservatives have staked their claim. They created their little universe consciously, by choice, for their own pleasure, that it might be picked apart by those interested in doing so – not me mind you – if only there was a pill… so I don’t think there’s a whole lotta hope they’ll be wanting to ‘Get Real’

  18. #18 by Richard Warnick on October 17, 2012 - 6:26 pm

    Would it be a red pill or a blue pill?

  19. #19 by brewski on October 17, 2012 - 7:10 pm

    You’re quoting an Obama bundler? Please tell me that was a joke.

    What next? “Proof” coming from Debbie Wasserstein-Schultz?

  20. #20 by Gauleiter Burgen on October 17, 2012 - 7:22 pm

    haha, Richard says obama kept abreast of events in Libya until a bunch of organized Jihadi warriors showed up blew our consulate/embassy, same duties, to kingdom come and then butt fucked our gay ambassador dead and alive..

    Gee Richard, you make it sound like obama watched..

  21. #21 by brewski on October 17, 2012 - 7:35 pm

    Richard, you are either totally dishonest or totally ignorant.

    Mitt never said “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”. That was the title written by the NY Times editors and not Mitt. You lie.

    Mitt also never said that the Detroit automakers should be thrown on the private market. Again, you lie.

    Here is what Mitt said in his own words and not in the words of you the liar, Obama the liar, or Rattner the bundler/liar:

    “I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

    But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

    The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

    In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

    So Mitt says:
    1. Eliminate all of the debt and equity of the old investors
    2. Slash executive salaries and perks
    3. Provide new Federal loan guarantees
    4. New Federal investment in efficiency and technology

    So nothing you said is true in the slightest. You just make shit up. You make Sarah Palin look like Winston Churchill.

  22. #22 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 12:16 am


    You know, these things are recorded and available on the World Wide Web. Romney may not know that, but we do.

    Romney- That’s What I Said, Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

  23. #23 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 5:33 am

    Thank you providing support for what I just said. Obama did what Romney recommended. Thank you.

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 8:10 am

    President Obama bailed out the auto industry, which Romney said was exactly the wrong thing to do. The Wall Street bailout was for the millionaires and billionaires. The auto bailout was for the middle class. That’s why Romney opposed it.

    Romney “never said ‘Let Detroit go bankrupt'”? He said it, and we have the video!

  25. #25 by cav on October 18, 2012 - 8:42 am

    That idiot ‘suds-head’ is going to ‘win’ every argument if it’s the last thing he does. I say give him the ‘win’, that he might retreat to his basement for a little time-out. You know -pull his head out.

  26. #26 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 8:47 am

    You have no idea what Obama did and what Romney recommended. Your facts are completely wrong. You have no clue as to what your are talking about. Obama did do what Romney recommended. Obama just did it 7 months later.

  27. #27 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 8:58 am

    Romney’s idea was to let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt. Then vulture capitalists like Bain Capital could buy their assets for pennies on the dollar, force workers to train their Chinese replacements, and ship the factories to China.

  28. #28 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 9:10 am

    Apparently you didn’t read Romney’s piece on this. You are making shit up out of your ass. After you read it get back to me. Actually, get back to me when you understand it too. That may take a while.

  29. #29 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 9:14 am

    Bailout and bankruptcy are not the same. Romney is the one trying to deny the facts.

    First of all, the bailout began under President George W. Bush (the guy Romney invariably refers to as “Obama’s predecessor”). Looking back on his decision, Bush said “I’d do it again.”

    The reason GM and Chrysler needed a government bailout is that nobody on Wall Street or anywhere else in the private sector was prepared to lend them $80 billion. They were indeed in danger of bankruptcy.

    Had the government not intervened… GM and Chrysler likely would have been liquidated by their Wall Street bondholders…. One auto industry think tank estimated doing so would have led to 1.3 million job losses and threatened Ford, Toyota and other automakers.

  30. #30 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 9:27 am

    You don’t know the facts if they bit you in the ass. Both GM and Chrysler were put into bankruptcy by Obama. They really did. Fact. Just like Romney recommended. Fact. Obama’s Government Motors outsources jobs. Fact. You lie. Fact.

    “NEW YORK ( — General Motors filed for bankruptcy protection early Monday, a move once viewed as unthinkable that became inevitable after years of losses and market share declines capped by a dramatic plunge in sales in recent months.

    The bankruptcy is likely to lead to major changes and job cuts at the battered automaker. But President Obama and GM CEO Fritz Henderson both promised that a more viable GM will emerge from bankruptcy.

    In the end, even $19.4 billion in federal help wasn’t enough to keep the nation’s largest automaker out of bankruptcy. The government will pour another $30 billion into GM to fund operations during its reorganization.”

    “WASHINGTON — President Obama forced Chrysler into federal bankruptcy protection on Thursday so it could pursue a lifesaving alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat, in yet another extraordinary intervention into private industry by the federal government.”

  31. #31 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 9:34 am

    Romney would have let Wall Street liquidate GM and Chrysler, which probably would have also knocked out the rest of the American auto industry. By saving the auto industry, President Obama preserved 1.3 million jobs at no cost to the taxpayers. Imagine the cost of losing those jobs.

  32. #32 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 9:36 am

    He explicitly said he wouldn’t. He explicitly said he would screw the old lenders so that the company could emerge with new Federal support. So other than your own fucked up deceit and bitterness, you have no basis for any of this. Certainly not any of the actual facts I have humiliated you with.

  33. #33 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 9:45 am

    I have to admire Willard’s nerve in trying to claim that he deserves the credit for President Obama’s rescue of the auto industry. But it’s a bit much, even with the level of lying we usually associate with Romney. Romney would have shipped 1.3 million jobs overseas.

    Is Mitt Romney Trying To Steal Obama’s Auto Rescue Plan – Then Claim It As His Own?

  34. #34 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 9:53 am

    Obama Called Libya Attack Terrorism Long Before Romney

    Two weeks before Romney called it an act of terror.

  35. #35 by Gauleiter Burgen on October 18, 2012 - 10:04 am

    Spare the repetition of der Fuhrer’s lies. The narrative was a cover up, the dead asked for help, over a dozen times. obama didn’t want the look of anarchy coming home to the public, he gambled with American lives to protect the image of his policy and


    People are dead, this man is not fit to shine our service people’s and troops boots.

  36. #36 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 10:17 am

    Your link to the Daily Pinko is factually wrong. See #21.

    Why do you think you should read what someone else said Mitt would do rather than read what Mitt said Mitt would do?

    Should I go ask Sean Hannity as my source for what Obama has planned?

    You never make any sense. Ever.

  37. #37 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 11:28 am

    Um, because “Mitt” is a liar. “Mitt” is not even his real name!

  38. #38 by cav on October 18, 2012 - 11:29 am

    But Mitt said he would do ‘this’ before he said he would do ‘that’. After so many years he’s finally mastered the Etch-a-sketch.

  39. #39 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 11:47 am

    I proved you are a liar over and over again. You also helped me prove Obama is a liar.

    Mitt Romney’s full name is Willard Mitt Romney. Willard is for his father’s friend, hotel magnate J. Willard Marriot. Middle name Mitt is for Milton Romney, his father’s cousin and a former Chicago Bears quarterback.

    Paul McCartney’s first name is James. James Paul McCartney. So what? The fact that you obsess about shit like this proves again that you are one sick nut. Get over it.

    Anna Eleanor Roosevelt went by Eleanor
    Henry Louis Gehrig went by Lou
    Irwin Allen Ginsberg went by Allen
    Joseph Rudyard Kipling went by Rudyard
    Terence Stephen McQueen went by Steve

    Are you going to pop a vein over Eleanor Roosevelt?

  40. #40 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 12:08 pm

    Fact check:

    At a GOP presidential debate last November, Romney followed CNN host Wolf Blitzer’s lead, giving his own attempt at an introduction.

    “I’m Mitt Romney — and yes Wolf, that’s also my first name,” the former governor offered.

    That is entirely, completely, 100 percent, not true.

    Romney’s first name is Willard. Willard Mitt Romney: Male, 65 years old, married, white, businessman-turned-governor-turned-potential-next president of the United States of America. His father, George Romney, a Mexican-born governor and onetime presidential candidate, named him after J. Willard Marriott, of Marriott hotel fame. His middle name, “Mitt,” was apparently an homage to his father’s cousin, Milton “Mitt” Romney.

    So, what Romney really should have said was, “I’m Mitt Romney — and yes Wolf, that was the nickname of my first cousin once removed.”

  41. #41 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 1:16 pm

    Rachel Maddow did a great job of explaining what happened to Romney at the debate: he made the mistake of believing right-wing propaganda. The stories that right-wingers tell each other ought never to be mistaken for the truth.

  42. #42 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 2:44 pm

    Do you know for a fact whether or not Mitt has had his name changed legally?

  43. #43 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 2:44 pm

  44. #44 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 3:01 pm

    Incredibly, Romney’s actual legal name is RomneyCorp. I kid you not.

    Thanks for the in-laws story, however Romney’s wife’s relatives are not running for President.

  45. #45 by cav on October 18, 2012 - 3:02 pm

    If the American people can choose Tricky Dick over George McGovern, they’re capable of anything.

  46. #46 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 3:07 pm

    “If I were back in the Senate or in the White House, I would ask a lot more questions before I voted for any more burdens on the thousands of struggling businesses across the nation.”

    George McGovern

  47. #48 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 3:12 pm


    I have said it before, but if we rebuild the middle class then those “struggling businesses” will have more customers. You know who’s not “struggling”? Wall Street financiers.

  48. #49 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 3:20 pm


  49. #50 by cav on October 18, 2012 - 3:26 pm

    Also. Too!

  50. #51 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 3:30 pm

    You could say that rich people in general are doing quite well.

    From 1979 to 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the income of the 60 percent of Americans in the middle of the income ladder rose 40 percent compared with an average 275 percent increase for the top 1 percent. During that time, the top 400 incomes increased 392 percent while their average tax rate fell 37 percent. By 2007, the top 1 percent held a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928, and that gap is growing.

    Still waiting for the “trickle.”

  51. #52 by Richard Warnick on October 18, 2012 - 3:36 pm

    President Obama on September 13th (emphasis added):

    Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week — we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.

    And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare. (Applause.)

    So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America. (Applause.)

    This was the second time the President referenced the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror.” Romney did not say that until September 25th.

  52. #53 by brewski on October 18, 2012 - 4:04 pm

    If you are waiting for the trickle you might need to shake it after you’re done.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: