@Garon: Fast and furious seems to me to be the classical “storm in a teacup” aimed at discrediting the current administration. The world is not a perfect place and mistakes will happen. What little I’ve seen on that issue over here suggests that the project already existed in 2008 albeit under another name. I’ll agree that even one dead border patrolman is one too many but wonder why similar outrage is not directed at the many dozens of cops who are killed every year in a country where guns are sold on the same counter alongside chocolate bars and underwear and where there is such fierce opposition to any form of control.

Anyway, I don’t remember this sort of divisive smearing and slurring occurring after 9/11 when the President was a Republican and everybody – Democrat, Republican and Independents – closed ranks as A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N-S. What’s changed? Oh yeah, the President, today, is a Democrat who’s half white, and it’s an election year. Who benefits (“cui prodest”) from such hasty hoop-la?

Jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in could lead us – the public – to accept the need for wrongful action. That’s what happened when the USA invaded Iraq in a campaign intended mainly to be retaliation for an attack (on the twin towers) perpetrated by a bunch of criminals made up mainly by Saudis. There was not one Iraqi in that lot but the USA decided to attack Iraq and basically invented the story on those WMDs. The truth about those WMDs emerged years later in the USA and about 20% of the viewers of FoxNews still don’t believe that Iraq no longer (if it ever) had them. The number of Americans who died in Iraq was far greater than the number who’ve died because of fast and furious (always conceding that even one death is one too many). Wouldn’t surprise me one bit were you to come back and claim that fast and furious is responsible for the whole drug war in Mexico. Do that and this conversation is finished.

I’ll tell you what’s suspicious: that toup.

@Garon: sorry, but I’ve worked in the diplomatic service off and on for over 40 years and what is being bandied about as “news” just doesn’t seem to ring true. Shall we wait for the findings of the investigation?

@Ellen: As I recall the F&F version had the same people and they were sitting in the same seats. Two men were pro-Obama in both versions but the third pro-Obama man was different. Luntz probably does several “takes” with different people from the group saying different things. Then he puts the best bits together. This time, his right hand wasn’t told what his left hand was doing. Dishonest is what I calls it.

@Kathleen: absolutely not. It’s just that this thread has actually got some interesting posts. It’s boring to speak only to the like-minded but far too few lurkers are actually willing to sustain an exchange of views.

@Garon Galloway: imagine what would happen if each and every one of America’s over 250 diplomatic seats throughout the world were to dictate just how much security was needed. The budget would be gigantenormous. It takes time for Central command to screen the requests and – I imagine – ask Congress for the funds. So silly to jump to conclusions before all the facts are known.

I, for one, will wait for the investigation findings which I trust will provide the time-lines. And I hope those findings will not show the administration to be as prone to gang violence than the previous one.

In any case, as I do not believe that Ambassador Stevens was suicidal, the very fact that he was there under those conditions tells me that he did not feel threatened and he was there to look into a hospital or some such non-military installation. The presence of an essentially “friendly” environment would seem to be corroborated by the mass PRO-AMERICAN protests that reportedly brought down the militias allegedly responsible for the attack. Seems that those militias are rather more like street gangs in New York than an expression of widespread popular sentiment.

Thanks Ellen. I’m really curious to compare the two versions.

I see that the debate has emboldened a few lurkers. Game’s not yet over, laddies and lassies. There are still three debates to go and we remain hopeful (as should you, of course).

PS: a lot of what Romney said last night sounded like a redigested version of what Obama’s being saying consistently for years. Seems he’s decided that Obama’s ideas were hitting the mark with voters so he flipped yet again. Next step is flop as in flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flop.

To be more specific…of course it’s made of people who say they don’t know who to vote for..that’s kind of the point…people who have made up their mind already are just going to see our guy as winning. To call a focus group of undcedicded voters suspicious for containing undecided voters is crazy talk. Fairness is, after all, a concept promoted by those desperate to break even.

So, wait, the evidence for tampering is that it didn’t go your guy’s way? No wonder O got creamed in the debate, liberalism is mass delusion which simply looks delusional next to a competent center-right candidate talking to a center-right nation.

bemused, good catch about the editing. I’m guessing Luntz put together two focus groups for some reason.

Here’s a link to a debate transcript:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/debate-transcript/index.html

My experience with the foxies is patchy at best but I’ve just watched F&F and saw a slightly different clip from the same focus group. In this morning’s version, Luntz asked “Who voted for Obama in 2008”, and several people actually hesitated before raising their hands. In the F&F clip only 2-3 people had anything positive to say about Obama and I don’t think they were the same ones. The guy in the brown shirt in the front row was not in the clip aired on F&F. Instead of him, the token third pro-Obama testimonial was provided by a man in the top row.

Another thing I noticed is that the foxies have cropped the bit where the President says to Lehrer: “Uh, Jim, you may want to go on to the next topic … but I’d like to answer what the Governor’s just said”. The clip was aired several times without that last bit allowing listeners to conclude that Obama wanted Lehrer to get him out of a corner. Very unprofessional of the foxies.

Frank Luntz’s focus groups are about as authentic as that dead muskrat he wears on his pointy head.

What struck me during the debate was the similarity between what Romney has started to say and what Obama has always said. The semantics were different but the substance seemed to me to be almost identical in many cases. Is there any way to get a transcript of the debate?