Already yesterday’s news. From CNN:

Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafism, a 21-year-old man, has been arrested on suspicion of planning to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, federal officials said. Authorities say he attempted to detonate what he believed was a 1,000-pound bomb.

Man attempts to blow up the Federal Reserve in the US, pushes the detonator but finds that the bomb is a dud because the people he had contacted for assistance were from the FBI. The intent was there, just as it was in Bali a decade ago, but because of Homeland Security in the US, the bomb did not go off and hundreds of people were not killed in an explosion. So as I asked yesterday:

Will this story be major or even be reported anywhere else?

My guess was that it would not be a big story. And this morning, there is nothing I can find in any of the local papers I read, and if it’s there, it’s a small story which I may have overlooked. Yesterday I also noted this:

Just checked out The New York Times Online edition. For New York, it is not only an international story of quite some significance, it is not only a national story of quite some significance, but it is even a local story of quite immense significance. And true to form, there it is on its online edition, right underneath this:

Painkiller Crackdown Targets Drug Distributors

That was at 4:15 am in New York. And after that, at 9:00 am US east coast time, to go with the above, I checked out the online pages of The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The LA Times and USA Today. Not one mention other than in USA Today as about the tenth item on the list of stories covered.

Again I ask, why do you suppose that is? Because it’s not good for Obama is the reason that I gave yesterday but there must be more to it than that.

Is this the kind of story that now ends up as an Odd Spot or as part of Also in the News? From CNN:

Editor’s note: Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafism, a 21-year-old man, has been arrested on suspicion of planning to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, federal officials said. Authorities say he attempted to detonate what he believed was a 1,000-pound bomb. This story is developing.

Will this story be major or even be reported anywhere else? The story doesn’t mention whether the alleged bomber is an Austrian economist but I will try to find out.

I’m advised in the comments: that it’s a big story. Good and it should be. Now we only need to find out if the alleged bomber was of the Austrian economic persuasion. Do the stories mention what his motivation was in trying to blow up the New York Fed?

Just checked out The New York Times Online edition: For New York, it is not only an international story of quite some significance, it is not only a national story of quite some significance, but it is even a local story of quite immense significance. And true to form, there it is on its online edition, right underneath this:

Painkiller Crackdown Targets Drug Distributors

Why do you suppose that is? Can’t be good for Obama is all I can think of.

This is from The Washington Post this morning:

Who won the debate?

Mitt Romney 53%

Barack Obama 47%

49343 people have taken this poll.

That is, it comes from readers of The Washington Post which should tell you something. It comes at the end of an article by Jennifer Rubin who discusses the remarkable three-way exchange over Benghazi. The question had come from Kerry Ladka and this is at the centre of Rubin’s article:

Was Ladka satisfied with how the president responded? Simply no. ‘I really didn’t think he totally answered the question satisfactorily as far as I was concerned,’ Ladka tells the Erik Wemple Blog.

But don’t you know. That’s why the media moderator intervened to help the helpless Obama out.

Update on The Washington Post Poll:

Who won the debate?

Mitt Romney 57%

Barack Obama 43%

60412 people have taken this poll.

Sally Zelikovsky at The American Thinker had the same reaction to the two minute set up from the Obama-Crowley exchange. If media impartiality were even a remote factor in today’s world, this would be a major storm.

Obama finished his 2+ minute answer to the initial question with ‘You know that I mean what I say.’

Romney then gave his 2+ minute response starting out saying many days passed before we knew if the Benghazi tragedy was a terror attack or resulted from a spontaneous demonstration. He asserted that we KNOW it was a terror attack but took a long time before the American People were told that and it was either misleading or they didn’t know and, if the latter, we have to ask why. So far so good.
Romney then continued that after 5 days, the Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice went on TV and said the attack was because of the spontaneous demonstrations. Romney asked again: ‘How could we not know?’

He then recited how on the day following the death of Ambassador Stevens (which is the first time this has happened since 1979) when ‘apparently’ we didn’t know what happened, the President went to Vegas and the following day to Colorado for campaign events–which actions have symbolic and possibly material significance. He pointed out it was clear this was not a demonstration and called into question the President’s Middle East policy. Romney then used this opportunity to go into some detail about Obama’s failed Middle East policy.

Candy Crowley then asked the President about the buck stopping at his desk and he launched into his tirade about being offended by Romney calling him out the Sunday morning after the murders and said ‘The day after, I stood in the Rose Garden and told people this was an act of terror.’

Bam! For a lawyer — any lawyer–even one who never practiced like Romney — this is the stuff movies are made of. This is the kind of admission we are always sniffing out and Obama, a lawyer himself who was obviously trying his hand at Clintonian hair splitting, offered it up knowing full well that’s not what he said. And he got Candy to go along with him. Bad Candy.

But before the pundits continue to beat up on Romney for lost opportunities and a flubbed answer, Romney pounded Obama on his Rose Garden claims. With deadly seriousness he looked at Obama and said ‘I think it’s interesting the President just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.”‘

Obama interjected: ‘That’s what I said.’ Bam!

Romney continued: ‘You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror; it was not a spontaneous demonstration. Is that what you are saying?’

Obama haughtily invited Romney: ‘Please proceed Governor.’ Bam!

Romney responded: ‘I wanna make sure we get that for the record because it took him 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.’ Bam!

At which point Obama called for Candy to ‘Get the transcript’ and she came to his rescue ruling that Obama did say it was an act of terror–applause–and that Romney was also correct that it took 14 days for clarification–applause.

Romney, with a bit of stuttering, says: ‘The administration indicated that this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction….It took them a long time to say this was a terrrorist act by a terrorist group….On Sunday…the Ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.” Bam! Bam!

Obama–desperately wanting to change the subject–announced ‘I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy….’ as Candy tells them that she wants to move on. And the President concedes ‘Ok, I’m happy to do that, too…. I just wanna make sure all these wonderful folks are gonna have a chance to get some of their questions answered.’

And now we run the tape. And note this when you watch. When Obama says, “get the trasncript” Crowley the moderator, actually seemed to have the transcript in her hand because she pulls a bundle of papers out which she is holding just as she declares that “he did indeed call it an act of terror” (1:30 in the video). A setup?

The moderator in the second presidential debate, Candy Crowley, did everything she could to skew the result towards the president but the most despicable moment was when Romney and the President were going at each other over whether Obama had understood that the murder of the American ambassador in Benghazi was part of a premeditated terrorist attack. One hardly had to have been paying attention to the news to know that for many days (two weeks apparently) the White House had insisted that it had all been in response to a video that had been put up on Youtube. Now everyone knows this is absolutely not the case (although the video’s producer does remain in jail), but this is only because the actual facts had become impossible to hide. The dearest wish of President Obama was that everyone would forget about his massive incompetence and outright lies and deceit.

The most dramatic moment in the debate was therefore when Romney was making the point that Obama had refused to call the attack terrorism for two weeks and Obama said that he had. Into this exchange, Crowley inserted her CNN-far-left-media-Democrat-ignoramus two cents worth to say in front of millions that yes, Obama had indeed called it a terrorist attack. Now, however, in front of the paltry few thousands that watch CNN she admits she was wrong. Watch the tape:

“Picked the wrong word!” Who did she think she was and what kind of an adult name is Candy anyway? Nor was that the only way in which she defended Obama. She cut Romney off on a couple of occasions which she never did for Obama and gave the president four extra minutes which is quite significant over a mere 90.

It was disgusting but nothing new. But a day of reckoning is coming and if Romney wins as he should, that day of reckoning will be not very far off in coming.

This is an article that could apply about as well in Australia as it does in the US but it is a question on this occasion addressed to the media in the US and to The New York Times in particular. It’s not as if the last four years have been shining examples of competence for which four more years would be a natural response.

Instead, it has been four years of incredibly bad economic policy resulting in an economy that is dead in the water with an immense level of debt and a president with no idea except to raise taxes on productive business. Just click to enlarge and what possible excuses could be left?

But it is foreign policy that, incredible as it may seem, that has been worse. The US is now a trusted friend to no one and in each area it has tried its hand, the results have been terrifying. Reset with Russia; Iranian nuclear bombs; building closer relations with Britain. Where is the world a safer place or a better place after four years of Obama? But after Libya and Benghazi, who could support Obama now? To that question, here is Pat Cadell’s answer:

[I]f you look at the front page of the New York Times on Monday morning, Libya is nowhere to be found. Yet, the Benghazi attack on 9/11 that killed our ambassador and three others was the topic of every Sunday talk show this weekend.
The New York Times still thinks of itself as “the paper of record”; it’s the one paper every network newscast consults on a daily basis. So why isn’t Libya on the front page Monday morning?

Here’s why: The Times is so in the tank for the Obama administration it’s scary. I’ve never seen anything like it. They are doing everything they can to protect the Obama White House over this disaster.

When are Republicans — and all Americans — going to call on the press to look into this outrage?

The trouble is, we are used to it and everyone makes adjustment as best they can. But the NYT will pull Obama across the line if it can. These people are the lowest form of life.

I watched the VP debate for the second time tonight since my wife hadn’t seen it during the day and I came away even more than before with the strong impression that Paul Ryan heavily took it out. He came across as someone with cool and judgement, someone with the gravitas and seriousness to be the president if he had to. He had thought about the issues and if he were called upon to decide on some matter, looks perfectly able to sort through the options he might be given with a genuine capability to properly weigh matters up.

Biden was the reverse. He struck me as crude and shallow, lacking in a genuine ability to see an issue through to the end. Nor did he give me that comfortable feeling that he would be able to take a difficult decision in which there might be a host of considerations to weigh up. And his laugh track was so irritating that you really do wonder whether he is psychologically unbalanced. It was obviously the strategy for him to smile and smile and be a villain yet, but if that was supposed to be a winning pose it worked for me not at all.

Before the debate I had written that:

Biden is wily and been around the traps for quite a while. He is practised in the art of politics which makes him a formidable opponent and not someone to let one’s guard down against for a moment. Though he lied and misrepresented from one end of the debate to the other, in my remembrance of the time he was more than a match for Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan is new at the game. Ryan has a number of potential problems in front of him – he may be too wonkish, he may sound too much like he intends to slash and burn and he is coming in against an expectation that will work against him if at the end of the night Biden has been able to hold his own. For all that, Ryan understands the issues within an inch of his life and Biden does not.

In the end, that’s still how it looked to me. Biden said whatever he thought might sound best on the night and truth be damned. He therefore came away with a superficial plausibility but struck me as someone of no substance. Ryan in contrast played it straight, obviously fortified by his deep knowledge of the issues and his commitment to the positions he took.

The test for me is this. If I were considering which of the two I would want to sit down with Vladimir Putin in some negotiation where some vital interest was at stake, there is no doubt that I would prefer it was Ryan at the table. On this, if there’s doubt for you, there’s none for me at all.

Some further thoughts: In my view the difference in the debate and which affected Paul Ryan is the difference between talking to an audience that knows the facts and the general public that does not. Ryan’s experience comes from discussion in the House where it is difficult to get away with untruths and misstatements for very long. The unemployment rate went down below eight percent for the first time in 43 months – hardly a worthy test of economic competence – and even then the number had the look of a fiddle as has been noted. Anyway, as the Washington Post further noted, the data also showed “the biggest increase in so-called underemployed Americans since February 2009, during the depths of the Great Recession.” Loved the “so-called” since it is a stat in the same league as the unemployment rate.

Meanwhile Iran really is moving closer to the bomb and whatever nonsense there may be about Iran being “more isolated” than ever, it will make hardly an ounce of difference since even North Korea has the bomb and no one is more isolated than they are. And if you’re not scared about that what does scare you? Romney often talks about a suitcase bomb in New York against which there would be no defence.

And the bit about tax cuts for the rich, it is necessary to understand the American system which means that to raise this rate will raise taxes on a multitude of small firms.

Ryan’s problem – a general problem for Republicans – is that they assume a higher level of knowledge and a better comprehension of the issues. The Democrats, like all the parties of the left, stick to the P.T. Barnum Principle, there’s a sucker born every minute. With population growth being what it is, we’re down to one every ten seconds and the numbers are growing.

This was a pretty famous picture on the day that Obama was elected back in 2008. The fellow on Hilary’s right is Jon Favreau who is to this minute Director of Speechwriting for President Barack Obama. “He has been named,” as his Wikipedia entry puts it, “one of the ‘100 Most Influential People in the World’ by Time magazine.” Yet as the text that goes with the picture puts it, “there he is, groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Rodham Clinton as an unnamed pal wearing an ‘Obama staff’ T-shirt kisses and feeds her beer.”

By these standards, Julia Gillard has had a pretty tame time of it. If she would like some idea of what misogyny looks like, she should have a look at these chaps from the Obama administration instead.

Incredible if these really are Biden’s reactions to Ryan’s statements. My own view, Ryan was more presidential than either Biden and Obama and our future would be a lot more secure in his hand than in theirs.

This is a reply by Mitt Romney to the insane allegation from Obama’s spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, that the inquiries taking place over the murder of the American ambassador in Benghazi are occurring only because it has been politicised by Romney and Ryan.

President Obama’s campaign today said that Libya is only an issue because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. They’re wrong. The reason it is an issue is because, for the first time since 1979, an American ambassador was assassinated and President Obama’s foreign policy strategy of ‘leading from behind’ is failing. This administration has continually misled the American public about what happened in Benghazi and, rather than be truthful about the sequence of events, has instead skirted responsibility and dodged questions. The American people deserve straight answers about this tragic event and a president who can provide leadership, not excuses.

How anyone can not think of this as a major political issue is beyond me. That they would rather suppress such debate shows they understand perfectly well just how far knowing the facts of what took place discredits this administration, but that is the last reason that it should not be discussed right now. The month before an election is the perfect time for these issues to be vetted, far better than the month after, especially if keeping silent allows this administration to be re-elected.