President rips his rival for being “all over the map” while Romney barely fights back.
U.S. President Barack Obama (R) debates with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as moderator Bob Schieffer (C) of CBS looks on at the Keith C. and Elaine Johnson Wold Performing Arts Center at Lynn University on October 22, 2012 in Boca Raton, Florida. The focus for the final presidential debate before Election Day on November 6 is foreign policy. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Obama Slams Passive Mitt
22 October 12
President rips his rival for being “all over the map” while Romney barely fights back. Howard Kurtz on why the Republican played rope-a-dope.
resident Obama accused Mitt Romney of "wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map" at their final debate Monday night, while Romney took a strikingly sober and subdued approach in response.
Uncorking a half-dozen attacks within minutes as his rival sat across the table in Boca Raton, the president tried to eviscerate Romney on foreign policy. He said the Republican wanted to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, had sent mixed signals on withdrawing from Afghanistan and proclaimed America's top enemy to be Russia.
In an obviously rehearsed line, Obama said Romney was peddling "the foreign policy of the 1980s," "the social policy of the 1950s" and "the economic policy of the 1920s."
Romney defended himself in the most measured tones. His only initial swipe was recalling that Obama had told Vladimir Putin that he would have more flexibility in dealing with the Russian leader after the election. And in a not-so-subtle effort to distance himself from the last Republican president, Romney said, "We don't want another Iraq."
This was not the Mitt Romney of the first or second debate. Sounding like a political scientist at times, he had clearly made a calculation that playing it safe and demonstrating world knowledge were sufficient in a race in which many polls are trending his way. He steered clear of anything that might be interpreted as an aggressive call to action.
Romney thus stuck to generalities and platitudes-he would "go after the bad guys," he was worried about a "rising tide of chaos"-without drawing bright lines on what he would do differently than the administration.
In fact, Romney congratulated the president on the killing of Osama bin Laden, said he supported what Obama had done in helping prod Hosni Mubarak from power in Egypt and does not favor military intervention in Syria. He also said he would complete the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan in 2014 and acknowledged that the surge there-Obama's surge-"has been successful."
It was a rope-a-dope strategy in which Romney had his gloves up but left little substantive distance between himself and his rival.
By the half-hour mark, Romney was getting so little traction on foreign policy that he pivoted to the domestic economy and how America is heading on "the road to Greece." Obama followed suit, talking about the need for smaller class sizes.
Even when asked by moderator Bob Schieffer about Obama's charge that his policies were "wrong and reckless," Romney briefly chuckled and said, "I've got a policy for the future." In diplomatic terms, it was as if only one of the contenders had signed a non-aggression pact.
Schieffer essentially let the candidates hijack the debate at times, pushing the conversation toward budgets and business.
Obama set the agenda throughout the evening. On the nuclear threat posed by Iran, the president said sanctions were "crippling their economy" and that Romney has "often talked as if we should take premature military action." Romney engaged in a bit of me-tooism-he called for crippling sanctions five years ago-and said military action would be a "last resort." He rarelh changed expression, as if getting mad, or even annoyed, was against the rules.
Two-thirds of the way into the debate, Romney said Obama had promised to "meet with all world's worst actors" and had conducted an "apology tour." But it was more of a jab than a roundhouse right. And the president parried by calling the apology charge "the biggest whopper" of the campaign.
Just when things were calming down, the president circled back to the mission against Osama, recalling that Romney said it wasn't worth moving "heaven and earth" to get the al-Qaeda leader-and then recalling a girl telling him of her last conversation with her father as the World Trade Center was collapsing. That was a line George W. Bush might have delivered.
It was easy to miss the fact that after a generation of playing defense on national security, the Democrats, at least for now, have the upper hand on the issue.
The challenge for Romney was the actual differences between the two men are slight when it comes to such thorny global issues as Iran and Afghanistan.
The candidates had very different goals heading into Monday night's faceoff. Obama had to defend his four-year record and defuse the inevitable criticism of the administration's handling of the Libya attack. Romney had to present himself as a plausible commander-in-chief in an arena that, given his inexperience, is hardly his greatest strength.
The Boca Raton debate had the potential to be the least influential of the three, in part because of the focus on foreign policy-a decidedly backseat concern in this campaign-and also because of the competition from the baseball playoffs and Monday Night Football. Obama apparently won the debate, but probably did little to change the campaign narrative in the final stretch.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
YOU SLAM-DUNKED HIM, MR. PRESIDENT!!!!
OBAMA - BIDEN 2012!!!! THE CHOICE COULD NOT BE CLEARER!!!!
BE SURE TO FIRE THOSE DO - NOTHING TEATHUG CONGRESMEN!!!!
We're only dealt so many cards, so we
have limited options. I, for one, have no intention of folding my hand. Obviously, you can do what you like.
The time for a third-party presidential run is when such a party has built itself from the ground up, taking House and Senate seats and governorships. Celebrity candidacies (yes, Ralph, I mean you) can only act as spoilers. It wouldn't hurt to eliminatethe Electoral College, too, and put some form of instant-runoff voting in its place.
What do you say to the millions of people who would be affected by romney's plan to destroy Social Security?
Let me guess. "FUCK 'EM".
What do you say to the millions of people who will be affected by romney's war with Iran (don't believe the etch-a-sketch debate last night)?
Let me guess: "FUCK 'EM".
The only people who this election won't matter to are those who's rich daddies will be there to bail them out, and those so personally wealthy they can afford to say "fuck 'em" to the rest of us.
If you can't see the difference you have no business voting at all.
The time for your rant will start the day they finish "counting" the ballots in this one. There is a difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The President is by far not the optimal choice, and probably not the best person on the ballot. But with him in office, America's chances of an economic recovery are much higher than the chances under (occasional) governor Romney. Our standing in the world has improved and continues to remain steady, so we can openly declare ourselves as an American when overseas without feeling ashamed.
By all means vote for an alternate party candidate, but if you live in a "swing" state then do so fully acknowledging the potential impact of a Romney presidency.
1. Call everyone who disagrees with you ignorant.
2. Claim it's impossible without trying.
AMAZING STRATEGY!!!
This is what the 3rd parties have to offer - the ability to DO NOTHING for four years but bitch on the internet, and then suddenly feel proud of yourselves because you took part in destroying the only people who have any realistic shot at defending the rest of us against the onslaught of right-wing ideology.
It's pure laziness + vanity.
As the system is now, yes, both parties have to appease certain "corporate" interests. However the Dems would like to change this system. I recently heard my US Rep Tim Ryan (not Paul Ryan) speak her and I asked him what the Dems would do to get the money out of politics if they had control of Congress and he replied that the first order of business would be to propose a constitutional amendment to mandate public funding of elections. Sherrod Brown, one of my senatprs, is working with MoveOn to sponsor a petition asking for same.
This is a good reason to vote for Democrats - even if you disagree on many of their other positions.
We need a Coalition Party made up of alternate parties so we can change the direction of our country so that our government serves the people instead of the corporations.
Otherwise, you are "Doing the Nader", which is what actually gave us the disaster of GW Bush. Politics is the art of the possible, and needs to be played with all eyes on the nuances and the real gains, however small, that may be available.
Obama is far from perfect, but he is far better than Wrongmoney, and we need to avoid another Bushwhacking, which is what Mutt would deliver.
For one thing, close to nothing was said about the looming Global disaster of Climate Change. That is a tribute to the utterly limited and propaganda-dist orted idea of Global Warming reality in the minds of so much of the US Public. Obama was unwilling to bring that vital issue up, because Mutt would have tried, probably successfully, to use the misinformed public to score points. However, we stand a far better chance of actually doing something useful about Climate Change with Obama as President. Wrongmoney seems oblivious to the problem.
And then there is the issue of the Supreme Court. If anyone thinks that playing the purist and voting for some hopeless, however nice, 3rd party, they may bring us another disaster on the court.
Nader took several percentage points away from Gore in New Hampshire.
GORE LOST NEW HAMPSHIRE BECAUSE OF NADER.
People forget the fact that Gore would have won WITHOUT Florida if not for Nader taking votes away in New Hampshire.
The Supreme Court had nothing to do with New Hampshire.
Did Gore win New Hampshire?
Here's how the count went in New Hampshire:
-BUSH (273,559)
-GORE (266,348)
-NADER (22,198)
Hint #1: 266,348 + 22,198 = 288,546
Hint #2: New Hampshire wasn't even disputed. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with it.
YES, NADER COST GORE THE ELECTION.
P.S. Sorry for quoting actual facts. Don't believe me? Check out this link:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
And unlike Nader, whom exit polls showed won about half as many Republican votes as Democratic, we can be reasonably sure that virtually all of the WWP votes would have voted for Gore, if their own candidate wasn't running. So the WWP is a "spoiler."
Moreover, Nader wasn't even on the ballot in Tennessee, Gore's home state; Gore managed to lose that as well. Had he won the people over whom he represented in the Senate, he would likewise have won without Florida, since Tennessee has a greater population than New Hampshire.
Then there is Arkansas, the immensely popular Bill Clinton's home state, which also went for Bush. Why? Well, maybe it had something to do with the Gore campaign's, still smarting from Monica, deciding to distance themselves from Clinton, and decline his offer to be an active campaigner for Gore.
And of course, when the media sponsored a complete recount, it showed that in every count except the one Gore chose to fight on, he would have won Florida as well.
Finally, there is the small matter of the one-sided media coverage, which let Bush lie without consequence, and called Gore a liar after distorting his speeches.
In fact, Gore cost Gore the election; that and a corrupted SCOTUS.
If you look up the exit polls from Florida you will discover the percentages of responses. Some who voted for Nader would not have voted at all had he not run. Others would have voted for Bush. However, the largest number by far would have voted for Gore, and simple math shows that number would have given Gore the State by a large margin.
I have no idea what "facts" you think you are talking about, but the ones that don't just exist in your head are the ones we need to consider. Look it up, be informed.
What it did is give so called "moderate" repugs a viable threat, i.e. PRIMARY from the far right.
The Democratic Party hasn't had the widespread participation among the far left, so the Democratic Party has chosen to ignore them as well. If far lefties (I AM one by the way, it's not an insult) were to threaten conservative Democrats with competitive primary, you'd see the Democratic Party move FAR to the left of where it is now.
I would have been all for Stein or Anderson competing against the President in a primary. I was talking about this 3 years ago! Nobody listened. This is why stein and anderson are fighting for the 2% of the electorate who actually plan to vote for them regardless of the consequences to the other 300 million of us, and it's also why Obama is statistically tied in New Hampshire (a liberal state that can't ever get behind a Democratic candidate).
One surprise for me is that this is not the first time the Republican Party has had such a paroxysm of foolishness.
I am disgusted with Nader for several reasons, among which is that the Corvair was a very good car for its time. I would happily drive one now if I could find one.
But the biggest screw-up of Nader is that he is intelligent enough to have known he could throw the election to Bush, and his ego was so bloated he just didn't care. That to me is grotesque irresponsibilit y, and all presidential candidacies of third party figureheads come with the same danger to some degree. If they are actually liberal, they need to make it part of the process to make their point, gather their followers and thank them, and then tell their supporters to vote for the realistic candidate with the best liberal potential. To do otherwise is foolish in the extreme.
Sorry....We WERE a democracy. Since NO politicians can run for office without money, they are ALL beholden to their donors.
Since Citizens United our elections are simply AUCTIONS and the ones with the most wealthy donors "WINS" whichever office they are running for.
The Supreme Court...that is... the 4 reactionaries ruined the country. It was certainly not good before...but since their AWFUL decision, it is insanity. Very few people have any respect for The Court anymore....and that is BAD.
We HAVE to re-elect Obama and try to get some REAL JUDGES onto the Supreme Court, in order for our CITIZENS to get fair treatment in the court. The present court is strictly FOR big business.
The polls tell me every day how well other candidates are doing. Do you pay any attention to them? Or are you just fantasizing about unicorns?
Romney kept his cool,
Ahead in the polls, all Romney had to do was stay on track... and he did. Obama is obviously flustered and knows he's going down for the count. Barack will likely end up in prison for war crimes and for massive corruption within his administration, even more likely if the Republicans win both houses of Congress, Obama knows it and is sweating bullets. Obama tried for a knock-out punch, but Romney just played rope-a-dope. And Obama is the dope, who is not as smart as he thought he was. He's finally realizing that you can fool some of the people some of the time and most of the people most of the time, BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME. Obama tried to come out tough, but fizzled when he needed to present any kind of vision for the future. With a more level playing field of a one-on-one debate and missing his teleprompter, Obama's bully tactics and angry expression made clear that he is not a man of peace. Romney was the only one who spoke for peace and did so eloquently. Romney looked Presidential. Obama looked and sounded like a street thug, beating up on the world's poor and bragging about killing people. Romney will make a good President because he has a heart and sincerity and knows how to work cooperatively with people. Good riddance to Obama, the war criminal, flim-flam artist and bankster puppet.
We of the National Optimists Party say that there are too many substantive and portentous issues at hand for these debates to be the debased media circus they have become and, naturally enough, are wholly in favor of your suggestion to open the political process to alternative parties.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/22/1065731/thinkprogress-liveblogs-the-final-presidential-debate/
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
VOTE STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC, we have many states that need cleaning out too.
It's hard however, to spin tonight's debate as anything other than a win for the President.
I think Twittens was rope-a-doped by the 1st debate. Tonight we saw what a dope he was.
Also, it amazes me how often the former governor of the Caymen Islands thinks he can get away with blatantly changing his mind on the fly. He's like a used car salesman,
"Hey! If you don't like that, what about this?! No? Well, can I interest you in this instead?! I'll throw in rust protection! No? What about if we try this?!?"
The great thing about Twit is that if you don't like what he has to say, what 2 minutes and he'll take the opposite stance. The only time we REALLY know what he thinks is when he thinks the cameras are off and he's with his own (e.g. the 47% remarks).
Listen to rocky anderson and Jill stein debating the same questions, and hear some real responses. We need serious change and sane policy based within Nature and diverse systems, and not based on profit and empire. http://www.democracynow.org/live_stream/debate_2012_1022?fb_action_ids=3885147203348&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=.UIXxvImWlHE.like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
Of course. Unless we demand serious and real change, we are toast. Nature IS tanking now. Period. Sure, get Obama in office, and then sharpen our damn pitchforks and get involved. Shame on all of us. We are leaving a mess on our watch.
Obama said repeatedly that he would not allow Iran to have a "nuclear program"; he should have inserted "weapons" as he did too seldom. Iran, after all, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferati on Treaty (NPT) and has the right to low-enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Though the IAEA finds no evidence of weaponization and monitors sites closely, there is enough evasive foot-dragging and murky Iranian responses to generate suspicion.
Romney proposed bringing Ahmadinejad to trial for threats of genocide (read: nuking Israel). But wouldn't Ahmadinejad therefore begin by eliminating the 20,000 or so Iranian Jews, giving Israel a heads-up?
And I expected it to come from Mittens, but it was Barack who used the phrase "wipe from the map" about Iran's supposed designs on Israel, stemming from the October 25, 2005 Ahmadinejad
"mythical Holocaust" speech in Tehran that was poorly translated.
The most accurate translation seems to be "The regime occupying Jerusalem shall vanish from the pages of time/history";
the Farsi words for "wipe/eliminate " and "Israel" and "map/face of the earth" simply do not appear in Ahmadinejad's declaration.
A lengthy, very scholarly article from 2007 about the "wipe Israel" original speech:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
We'll just have to suspect that Mitten's knowledge of geography comes from FOX News
graphics.
In order to enact a liberal/progres sive agenda you have to meet the voters half way. You can't say, "If Americans weren't all a bunch of stupid assholes they'd vote for me". Yet, that's essentially the attitude of many of the "vote 3rd party just because" commenters. If we point out their lack of strategic foresight we're met with insults to our intelligence.
The fact is that being absolutely and immovably liberal on certain issues is a good way to turn away the votes of 90% of the electorate. The liberal 3rd party candidates being touted couldn't stand up to the scrutiny of mass media.
CONT.
About the myth that there's now substantial difference between the President and the Cayman Islands mascott:
President Obama is being attacked for promising to close down Guantanamo, but not standing up to the repugs who went ape-shit over the suggestion.
Romney said he wants to DOUBLE Guantanamo's capacity.
Obama signed the repug-written NDAA. Of course it's easy to forget that it was attached to the entire defense budget and it's clear the repugs were going to hold the defense budget hostage until they got that signiture. It was a win win for them. If he hadn't signed it, he'd be way behind in the polls today - competing against headlines saying, "Obama hates the troops and doesn't want them to be protected against al quaida". Don't pretend this wouldn't have been the result. You know the President's nuts were in a vice. Any Democratic President who refused to pay for the defense budget would be in serious trouble.
We're told by 3rd partiers that "Obama hates peace" because he's only ended one of the two wars he promised to end. The other won't end until 2014.
Twittens, on the other hand, says the President is "projecting weakness" and should "show more strength" against Iran and Syria. Of course the ONLY WAY HE COULD "show more strength" would be to bomb the hell out of them and start WWIII.
CONT.
...and no it wasn't a Freudian slip. Although I clearly left myself open to that attack!
This is a known fact as stated on the Senate floor by Democrat Senator Carl Levin. (You can find the CSPAN video of this here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY )
See the problem? Now the Indefinite Detention clause, which includes American Citizens, has been declared Unconstitutiona l but guess what? Obama has fought to keep it as part of the NDAA regardless of what anyone says. (Here is the link as it appeared on RSN http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/316-20/13530-focus-government-files-emergency-appeal-of-ndaa-decision
So tell me. Is Obama innocent?
Example: Section 1021, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So basically, if you are captured or detained outside of the U.S. you are fair game.
Section 1022 states the following about being detained “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” So as Salon.com points out "this section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention."
As you can see the clause does apply to Americans.
Twittens, on the other hand, says the President is "projecting weakness" and should "show more strength" against Iran and Syria. Of course the ONLY WAY HE COULD "show more strength" would be to bomb the hell out of them and start WWIII.
When this is brought up, the 3rd partiers will say, "yeah, but Obama wants to do the same"...
REALLY? Well then why hasn't he done it during his 4 years in office while repugs BEGGED him to. McCain even made up a Beach Boys song about bombing Iran back in 2008 and said he didn't care if we remained in Afghanistan for the 1,000 years.
Easily forgotten, huh?
None of what I said even covers economic / social policy. If you think there's no difference between a candidate who wants to honor the committment to Social Security and Medicare and one who wants to replace them with "vouchers", you're clearly not arguing in good faith, or cherry picking bits of information that further your agenda.
For those who think that a 3rd Party candidate is a better choice, please remember this: Just having an "independent" at the top of the ballot does NO good. It is necessary to build a strong base to support the policies that this individual proposes. Unfortunately the Democrats did NOT provide the President with a strong base when he came into office. The DINOs ("blue-dogs") helped the reactionaries more than they did the President. Although we see little "digs" at the repugnicans who have waged war on America by providing allegiance to Grover Norquist, little has been done to make them pay for being traitors to the USA.
----------
The uncompromising left reply to that is that:
1. Many many people are already protesting and it's not being recognized. So what good is it?
2. Once Obama is elected, what difference does it make to him what the rest of us think?
----------
What that logic fails to realize is the fact that historically current protests are ANYTHING BUT mass movements. The civil rights movement was FORCED on politicians who HATED BEING FORCED to do something about it. NONE of them wanted to stick their neck out for it. BUT IT WOULDN'T GO AWAY.
The same happened with the anti-war movement. If not for that, we'd still be in Vietnam today. If not for mass protest on a scale we can't ever seem to muster today, women would STILL not be able to vote.
Third party logic falls flat on it's face when dealing with the fact that women COULD NOT VOTE, yet forced an agenda that FORCED politicians to allow them to vote. They didn't need a 3rd party to do it. They needed a mass protest that wouldn't go away.
CONT.
When there's a mass protest for the environment something serious will get done. Until then, it's all fantasy.
When there's another mass peace movement something serious will get done. Until then, it's all fantasy.
When there's a mass movement to restore our Constitutional rights something will get done...
eh.. you get the picture.
-------------
We don't need to threaten the Democratic Party with splitting our own vote and potentially punishing ourselves "to get our way". Suicide never accomplishes anything.
We need to FORCE THEIR HAND AFTER THE ELECTION IS OVER.
Unfortunately, this requires millions of people to:
1. agree about something
2. GET OFF THEIR ASSES to do something AWAY FROM THEIR COMPUTERS about it.
Great synopsis. One nitpick complaint, and its not just you but numerous people here and elsewhere use the term 3rd Party. That unfairly lumps all alternative parties into a undefined lump. It also helps to maintain the image that the Republicans and Democrats are the default choices for any office. Lastly, using the term 3rd Party not only assigns all alternative ideas as not being mainstream, it reinforces the idea that we have a two party "system", when in fact, constitutionall y we have a no party system.
By 100?
Wait, maybe if we have THOUSANDS of left-wing parties, then what????
Do we get more than 45% of the vote THEN?
What we need is a Constitutional amendment to have a SINGLE JUNGLE PRIMARY with ALL candidates from all parties.
The jungle primary is followed by an automatic runoff between the top two vote getters.
THAT will allow hundreds of parties. Until then, we will ALWAYS have a MAXIMUM of 2 viable parties. One of them doesn't have to be the Democratic Party. I don't think the Greens will replace them within the next 2 weeks however.
No problem. I can take it, my wife is Italian! (that ought to stir up some s--t!)
I agree with your assesment that what we have is an Electoral Process, which of course is not dependent on two parties. The Constitution does provide for a mechanism where the House of Representatives votes when the Electoral College does not select a winner. Essentially a more parliamentary fall back position. So while I agree with your name, I still maintain the process of selecting a President is not party based.
All that being said, the entire election process needs to be rexamined and reinvented. The country is a tad bigger than it was in the 18th Century. I noted on a previous post some of my ideas regarding the election process changes that are needed. But without a Constitutional amendment, the first steps would be to federalize the Primary process, make hidden corporate donations illegal, limit the amount of corporate donations. Provide free TV time and access to any debates to all viable candidates. To prevent too many candidates, impose consistent requirements to get on the ballot applicable to all candidates.
That all can be done with just a few laws. Now go and find some politicians that would support even that.
You rock Obama!
Vote! & donate whatever you can.
Maybe that's why Ann is worried about his mental well being. It must be hell living with someone with that many split personalities in one person. Maybe that's why he can't remember which lie he told and when he told it.
I LOVE it!
Maybe that's what ann "I-want-a-horse y" Romney was refering to when she said we need to "unzip" him to see the "real" mitt.
The best was after Romney was whining that we did not have more ships than we did in 1916.
Obama calmly countered, Obviously The Governor doesn't know how our military works. We also don't have more horses and bayonets. We have these large ships, aircraft carriers, where planes land, and ships that go underwater, Nuclear Submarines.
Now THAT was a ZINGER. I thought Romney was going to fire off a lot of zingers in these debates? I am sure this was a planned zinger, but it came totally naturally and at the tight time and place in this debate. It was simply priceless.
Romney was....and looked lame. He had this sick little smile, when Obama spoke. Thank god Obama looked serious and listened intently when Romney spoke,..... and then he countered very well, shooting down Romney.
Continued
The man is a moron. The one good (i.e. moneymaking) idea he ever had was off shoring jobs. Nothing else in his entire life has anything worthwhile. Now, shipping jobs to slave labor countries is good only in the arena of moneymaking for yourself and is morally and ethically unsupportable.
Not according to the pias bundits!! (misspellings intentional)
I was so sick of hearing Romney perform on his trampoline, flipping and flopping, and going on, that I almost flipped out myself. Instead I flipped to the ballgame for a while and had a much better viewing experience.
At one point, when Romney said, in his response to the president, exactly what the president had just said in his answer to the question posed by the moderator, I almost threw a brick into my TV!
Being a creative person, I quickly wrote what should have been President Obama's retort..."I see that you agree with my actions as president completely; so Governor, I can count on your vote in November, correct! I thank you for your support, and the American people thank you too."
You're so humble.
I love your "Obama" answer BeeDee, I think if he had actually said what you suggested, Romney would have croaked.
Now THAT said. It was shocking that Bob Shieffer did not bring up Europe, South America, or the BRIC countries....Br azil, Russia, India and China!!
Instead it was constantly Israel, Israel, Israel.
Israel maybe important, but it is crazy to not discuss the other countries, which are moving ahead rapidly. How do we intend to interact with them? And how do we compete with them?
We certainly will not be able to compete if we keep slashing our spending on education, and we also MUST invest in research and development. That has always been our strength.
So important opportunities were missed to make our citizens understand the importance of the countries I mentioned. We really are NOT the center of the world, important...yes but not the beginning and end.
I keep looking for John McCain to show up - it's pretty hard to find Schieffer on the boob tube w/o McCain setting there too. He did a decent job of moderating - his Sunday show has become unwatchable.
Didn't decide whether to watch or not until the last minute (I've already voted absentee) - glad I watched, nice to see the Prez back in fighting form.
However, appointing Summers and Geithner was a really bad choice.
Iran is 4 years closer to the atomic bomb?
And two psychos pretending to be presidential were competing who is capable to "take out" - KILL more.
Assad will not go away - has support of Syria people, in Libya is Benghazi tribe genociding Qaddafi tribe - Hillary boy Prime Minister is out.
Iran is being decimated by the sanction - Obama proudly declares that it export less oil than during US friend Saddam/Reagan war on Iran (million died).
Tell me ONE USrael liberated country where people are better off than before the occupation/invasion/bombing.
Watching CBS "experts" my guess is that Romney "wins" on October 6, wile USA is being destroyed by militarism. It is militarism stupid.
The election, pure and simple, will be America's IQ test.
You're SO right, Fredboy. If Americans can't cut thru the BS and look at who is assembled to call the shots should Rmoney be elected, they'll be cutting their own throats.
(1) On the home front, he's going to implement the RYAN BUDGET, which will decimate our economy. He has no budget of his own. Rmoney - a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE - has signed the Grover Norquist "No New taxes" pledge. And Norquist has said that he expects Rmoney to "have enough digits to hold a pen to sign the legislation coming from Congress". And who will be forming that legislation? The crazed Tea Party who have opposed the President on every issue, brought us the sequester and a downgrade in America's credit rating - that's who!
(2) On foreign affairs, 17 of Rmoney's 24 foreign advisors are the neo-conservativ es from the Bush administration, who you might remember conjured up the INVASION AND OCCUPATION of Iraq. Which, I might add, Mitt was all for! President Obama was the first to point out that Rmoney took his DONORS to Israel to meet with the priminister - not the least of which was Sheldon Adelson, who wants to bomb Iran out of existence and holds a deep hatred for the Palestinians. This man has vowed to spend $100 MILLION to see Rmoney elected.
(3) Rmoney is a man who will say or do anything to gain the presidency. He has NO CORE VALUES!!!
That is what worries me VERY much. Is there any way to have monitors prevent a repeat of 04??
Can we check what people say AFTER THEY VOTED, so if there is a substantial discrepancy, we can take action??
Of course this is not possible BEFORE this election......b ut WHY can we not INSIST on getting voting machines that give us a paper receipt?? And make the machines uniform in all the states??
The elections since 2000 have all made us feel that irregularities were going on. Certainly in 04 in Ohio, when the Diebold manufacturer publicly assured Bush that he WOULD DELIVER OHIO TO HIM. And then HE DID IT.
From what I have read. Ohio WAS STOLEN, but nothing could be done.....I think because there was no way of PROVING IT
Also it should be illegal that private people OWN voting machines. How can that be handled so NOBODY can subvert votes.
We really need action here.
Snopes contacted the Ohio voter registrar, and the machines are being used in only two of Ohio's 88 counties [albeit the two most populous, according to other reports]. And the county registrars say that they use paper ballots, and that the Hart machines will be used only to scan in the totals,so that if there is a need for a recount, it can be done by hand with the representatives of both parties witnessing.
Sounds good; except that in 2004, 56 of the 88 counties in Ohio [under Secretary Ken Blackwell] defied a court order and destroyed all the ballots -- the evidence of fraud and corruption -- without consequence to themselves. So if the registrars this time around follow suit, a recount in those two populous counties will be impossible.
And one other thing: the Hart voting machines are also to be used in swing state Colorado, and the Snopes entry is silent about the details there.
OH pleeeeze, now you scare me.
Have you LISTENED to any of the undecided voters interviewed after each of the debates?
He can only win them over because from what we have seen they sure are not the brightest bulbs. The ones asked after the debates. DO you NOW know who to vote for? sounded pathetic. Their reasons for not knowing YET showed very little intelligence.
He is precisely what the T bags want. He will do what they dictate. For HEAVEN'S SAKE he has signed Grover Norquist's pledge of never raising taxes!!!
All responsible economists have said that we MUST... BOTH make cuts and raise taxes.
Romney said that his comprehensive strategy to reduce extremist anti-American sentiment is economic development in the Middle East. Yes, he said that in this last debate. So this indeed may be a part of his actual intention.
Sounds to me like W all over again who thinks we can offer fundamentalist Islamists some little taste of affluence or freedom and they will just abandon their religion (which they love more than their lives in many cases) just like that. How did it work in Iraq? And wouldn't this just be very expensive nation building? And wouldn't this take decades to accomplish?
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler.html
"Germany (USrael?)will either be a world power or will not be at all"
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
"Great liars are also great magicians"
"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
... almost any quote fits ...
It is scary how Romney mimics the fuhrer.
It's a wonder that we hear anything relating to the 'Inconvenient Truths' from Moldable Mittens.... (did we? er....)
"The Boca Raton debate had the potential to be the least influential of the three, in part because of the focus on foreign policy-a decidedly backseat concern in this campaign-and also because of the competition from the baseball playoffs and Monday Night Football" [Quote from article]
Unwitting or no, that sums up the US for you, or from my own perspective "Fuck the World, we have "Other issues" (as "Prick" Cheney said in getting his seven deferments from service in Vietnam)"; Baseball and Football (both of which I enjoy B.T.W.).
No wonder you are behind the rest of the world in so many progressive ways.
This country carries far too big a club for the hands it keeps being placed in -no slight on Obama actually, who is the most globally aware and multi-cultural President I think you've ever had.
Give him and yourselves a break.
RSS feed for comments to this post