October 22, 2012

Live-blogging the big last debate.

7:06 Central Time: Get ready!

7:32: In the comments, Sorun said, "I predict a big Obama win tonight, since the only people watching will be single women (and Althouse)." Ha ha. Very funny. Right now, we are watching the baseball game. I know there's football too.

8:02: Bob Scheiffer introduces the candidates.

8:04: First question: Libya. Romney talking as Obama keeps an icy stare trained upon him. I don't hear Romney nailing any strong point. He's decided to be conciliatory here for some reason. Obama talking now, stressing liberating the people of Libya after 40 years of despotism.

8:14: Romney: "Attacking me is not an agenda." He corrects Obama about Russia. He certainly wouldn't say to Putin he'll have flexibility after the election. Now, there's a lot of overtalking about Iraq. Obama gains control and talks about being "clear" about foreign policy. The moderator is not intervening, so the topics are allowed to be completely mixed up.

8:17: Obama has picked up Romney's tic of ticking off 5 points.

8:18: Syria. "Syrians are going to have to determine their own future," says Obama. What we see in Syria "is heartbreaking," but it would be "a serious step" to get "more entangled." Romney says "Syria is an opportunity for us." It's "Iran's only ally," but we don't want to get "dragged into a military conflict." Romney's trying to be level-headed and presidential, not to shake anything up here tonight.

 8:21: Romney says we should "be taking the leadership role" in Syria, and Obama picks up that phrase: "We are playing the leadership role."

8:24: Romney doesn't have different ideas about Syria, because we're doing the right thing there, says Obama.

8:25: Egypt: Romney wouldn't have supported Mubarak. Basically, again, Romney agrees with what Obama did. Romney adds some aspirations about the Middle East, but not any real distinction from Obama.

8:29: "What is America's role in the world?" is Bob Schieffer's big, generic question. Romney, "America must be strong. America must lead." Obama says we're "the one indispensable nation... Our alliances have never been stronger."

8:34: They've stopped interrupting each other. No belligerence tonight. There's an evenness and similarity to the 2 candidates (not that there aren't a few disagreements).

8:39: Obama just did some sharp interrupting while Romney was rhapsodizing about education in Massachusetts.

8:43: Romney defends military spending. He emphasizes keeping the numbers of ships and planes up. Obama says Romney doesn't understand how the military works. "We... have fewer horses and bayonets..." he says sarcastically. It's not "a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships."

8:47: Question: Does an attack on Israel count as an attack on the United States? Obama doesn't give a straightforward yes, but says "I will stand with Israel."

8:48: Romney adopts the same "stand with Israel" language. Both stressed military intervention as the last resort.

8:52: Obama says the reports of an agreement with Iran are not true. "We would welcome Iran" into "the community of nations." He chides Romney for acting as though it would work to say the same things but say them "louder."

8:54: Iran "saw weakness," Romney said, harkening back to Obama's campaign 2008 statements about willingness to sit down with the leaders of Iran (and other places). Obama was silent on Iran's Green Revolution. Obama said he'd put "daylight" between the U.S. and Israel, and that encouraged Iran's defiance. We need to "show strength." We need the tightest possible sanctions. We need to indict Ahmadinejad.

8:57: Everything Romney just said is untrue, according to Obama, who claims he was "very clear" about the Green Revolution.

8:58: Romney: "The reason I called it an apology tour... You said America had been dismissive and derisive... America has not 'dictated to other nations.' America has freed other nations."

9:01: Schieffer wants to know what we'd do if Israel called up and said our bombers are on the way to Israel, and Romney rejects the hypothetical. That's not the relationship we have. It wouldn't play out like that.

9:06: Romney assures us we'll bring our troops out of Afghanistan by 2014. But what if the Afghans aren't ready? That was the question. Obama ignores the question the same way.

9:11: "Is it time for us to divorce Pakistan?" asks Bob Schieffer. Romney: No, it's too important — nuclear weapons, terrorists.

9:13: Romney is asked about drone strikes, and he completely supports Obama's policy.

9:18: Obama defends fighting China when it dumped cheap tires here. Romney doesn't want "protectionism" against China, but finding mutual interests with China: We want a stable world, "but you've got to play by the rules." And Romney wants to declare China a "currency manipulator." Romney explains why that makes sense. "I want a great relationship with China" but "they can't roll all over us."

9:26: Lots of fighting over the auto industry. Obama says check the record and a bit later Romney says check the record. Romney's point is that government should not invest in business, while Obama is accusing him of willingness to let the auto companies go into liquidation.

9:30: Romney wants to get the private sector growing, which isn't done by hiring a lot of teachers, though he certainly does love teachers. Schieffer, rushing toward the finish line, says "I think we all love teachers," and announces it's time for closing statements.

9:36: Closing statements. Bob Schieffer ends with his mom's advice: Go vote.

9:40: Michelle Obama comes onto stage to greet Obama and about 10 Romney people — including a lot of kids — come up to hang out with Romney.

9:44: I watched on CNN (with that damn graph on the bottom showing how undecided males and females reacted to each moment), and afterwards James Carville yammered so much about how Obama won that I turned it off. I didn't think either candidate won. They seemed surprisingly similar. Obama certainly maintained eye contact. If it was an eye contact contest, Obama won.

9:52: Here's my bottom line: By adopting a strategy of only modestly challenging Obama and mostly seeming the same as Obama on foreign policy, Romney neutralized foreign policy as an issue and kept the election focus on the economy. He even refocused the discussion on the economy whenever he could over the course of the evening. The election is about the economy, and nothing either candidate said tonight will change that. The only way Obama really could have won is if Romney had tumbled into some kind of exploitable gaffe. That didn't happen.

941 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   801 – 941 of 941
Anonymous said...

Drones, bad then, good now.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Obama should just put up an add of Romney agreeing with everything he said.

furious_a said...

Romney's Benghazi argument will be laid out in his political ads.

Translation: It's easier to lie over the airwaves than in a debate where your opponent can call you on it.


...let me help you with that...

Translation: It's easier to piggyback on the news cycle than in a debate where your opponent can call on reinforcements from the moderator's table.

That's better!

elyse said...

Strange how Romney repeated "I love teachers! I love teachers! Just like Ann, "I love you women." Interesting how they have to pander because of unpopular positions.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI,
Limgaugh and Fox, promised BENGHAZI,
I watched and I waited,
I feel so sad and frustrated.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Romney did a good job of agreeing with Obama tonight.

Next time, I expect more agreement, though.

Romney should just say, "Mr. President, here is a signed decree that I will agree to everything you say."

THat's the logical endgame.

Anonymous said...

Is craftygirl Sandra Fluke? Welcome! Sure glad you have some time to spend with us after wowing monster crowds in Reno!

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Mitt Romney: Running out of things to disagree with Obama about.

jungatheart said...

Did Obama say he didn't want SOFA, or was he just quibbling about the amount of troops he wanted to remain in Iraq?

Anonymous said...

Oh Limbaugh will be so pissed off about Benghazi tomorrow, I may have to listen!

Chuck66 said...

Romney doesn't agree with Obama's attack on Religious liberty. Or Obama's hatred of domestic energy production.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I'm wondering whether Romney will run out of things to disagree with Obama about before or after the election.

Seeing Red said...

--Who knows John, I may make up my mind on the way to the polling station, like Althouse !---


Romney's not the only flip-flopper, I thought you were staying home, Inga.

Known Unknown said...

Oh, and Inga, I don't blame Obama for most of those changes. Reality is a cruel mistress. The view really is different from behind the desk, as most ex-Presidents can attest to. That's why Gitmo is still open and the Patriot Act is still in place, as much as I disagree with both of those.

Surprised?

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I expect Limbaugh to do an apology tour in Benghazi.

Someone offer to fly his fat ass over there right now.

Chuck66 said...

Romney may not pick good people for fed'l judicial positions, but his picks will be better than the affirmative action picks Obama has done.

"Look, my person has ancestors from Puerto Rico"

jungatheart said...

See, Ritmo, it worked. The only thing you can find to bitch about is the lack of things to bitch about. Too bad, so sad :)

Known Unknown said...

The problem with Benghazi is that at this point, Romney has little to gain with attacking Obama.

He could've played snarky with Vegas, going back to sleep, etc. but that's really not his gig.

Jobs are still the number one issue.

Libya will play itself out naturally.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Nah, I just think it's funny (and very telling) that Romney can't find anything more to yell at Obama about.

But yes, I think that's a good thing. ;-)

jungatheart said...

Lucy taking the football away at the last minute...ARM feels cheated, too :)

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

jr565 said...
read again the bolderdpart and then listen again to the charge that the president made concerning romneys position. It's a flat out lie.
Bankruptcy IS a form of help allowing companies protection while they reorganize. And Obama sent the companies through bankruptcy, he just screwed the bond holders to help his constituents. But again, Obama completely LIED about Romneys position. I provided the quote. You have no defense.


Fact checkers give it to Obama:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/22/fact-check-the-auto-industry-bailout/

As does anyone paying attention to what Romney actually says. A remarkably small slice of the population apparently.

Anonymous said...

Seeing Red, well it looks like I'm undecided after all. I going to the polls, it's my civic duty I suppose.

Seeing Red said...

LOL that Obama tried to school Mitt on our Navy. Which country's battleship did they use during the Demon Convention again?

Synova said...

I think that repeating horses and bayonets will help Obama. Everyone should keep that up.

Also:

America, Me, and the royal we.

elyse said...

exiledonmainst

Thank you so much for the compliment. I guess I hit a nerve.

Rose said...

818 comments - yowza

Known Unknown said...

Which country's battleship did they use during the Demon Convention again?

That was a spectacular fail. I couldn't believe it.

Anonymous said...

Craftygirl if you're anything like Sandra Fluke, you are a terrific human being, brave, principled and intelligent!

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

If Limbaugh flies over to Libya it will be a case of bein' gassy in Benghazi.

Known Unknown said...

Craftygirl if you're anything like Sandra Fluke, you are a terrific human being, brave, principled and intelligent!


You forgot needy.

garage mahal said...

Really, Romney won by losing.

Seeing Red said...

Fluke is a leech.

Anonymous said...

Whaaaat?! The Navy wants bayonets and horses?

furious_a said...

Bankruptcy for Dummies, Chapter III "First Claim":

First lien priority creditors (Pension Funds) > Junior unsecured creditors (UAW)...except in Chrylser Obamaland.

Loan guarantors (US Treasury > Equity holders (Obama-bundler Geo. Kaiser)...except in Solyndra Obamaland.

Seeing Red said...

OBAMA: “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. ”

Anonymous said...

Romney wants a bigger military budget to buy muskets for the Army!

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Yeah, that was a great quote.

It really should be the opening to just how serious Romney is on anything related to this country's interests.

gk1 said...

Refreshing to see Mitt keep stomping on obama's weak spot, the economy. He played it a bit safe for my taste, but he's ahead and knows it. President dick head did himself no favors with the evil eye of death. He looked like he was trying to levatate Mitt off the stage. Whotta douche bag.

Seeing Red said...

Since Iran & Venezuela signed an agreement in 2010 for Iran to place missiles in Venezuela, and Iran has a rocket to reach Florida, I'd be happy with keeping Star Wars especially since Barry's OK with Iran getting the bomb.

Synova said...

"Romney wants a bigger military budget to buy muskets for the Army!"

Makes as much sense as a smaller budget to buy aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines... on account of the change in the nature of our military and how stuff... costs less.

Seeing Red said...

And Drudge does it again!

A pic of Barry, underneath it:

Grand Finale!


LOLOLOL

elyse said...

Inga -- thank you! Right back at you.
Obama 2012 Romney 1040. Goodnight all.

And, also, too: Romney mentions gender equality for women in Middle East but not in America. WTF? Seriously?

Are you suffering from Romnesia? Call the law offices of Binder and Binder.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Damon said...
Libya is a dead horse. Nobody cares. Media has provided enough cover and misdirection that no hard-hitting points could possibly be made. Better for Romney though, it is still death by 1,000 cuts for Obama.

Always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...

Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...

And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...

furious_a said...

Admiral Obama's bumbling comparison of the USN combat effectives to horses and bayonets is understandable; after all his party can't distinguish between US and Turkish aircraft or US and Russian warships.

That the offensive montage appeared during a speech by John Kerry is just the cherry on atop the whipped cream atop the sundae.

Horses! Bayonets! The Black Sea Fleet! Tribute to Veterans! Brilliant!

Anonymous said...

Hit a nerve? Ah, no, I'm laughing as I'm watching the lefty circle jerk kidding themselves (once again) that their god-man scored some great victory tonight. Just like Biden did! Just like the 2nd debate!!

Whatever helps you sleep tonight, sweetie.

In a few days, you'll be all panicked about the polls (once again) and Inga will be jumping the fence(once again) to say, "I can live with Romney."

And La Fluke will still be preaching the Gospel of "pay for my sex life" to adoring crowds of a dozen or so.

Nighty-night, kiddies!

Seeing Red said...

I'm all for gender equality in the USA, since we're being run by womyn and they suck at it.

Anonymous said...

Exiled, that does it you made up my mind for me, what if my vote is the tie breaker? NOW I MUST vote for Obama.

Seeing Red said...

Was there ever any doubt?

Anonymous said...

YES, there was.

elyse said...

exiledonmainst

"Circle Jerk?" "Pay for my sex life?" Seems like you're a little obsessed with La Fluke yourself. Sweet dreams.

furious_a said...

And more comical than Admiral Obama was Trooper Obama's ignorant dismissal of horses.

Anonymous said...

Nite ladies, I'm glad I had decaf coffee with my Khalua.

Seeing Red said...

The Belmont Club nailed it --again -- & Mitt did what he needed to:

The public policy set might think the forthcoming presidential contest revolves around Benghazi or some other weighty foreign policy issue, because that’s the space they intellectually inhabit. But for many voters life revolves around the gas station, the supermarket and the credit card bill. The kitchen table is what they inhabit and in that space the issues are real simple....

...Forget Benghazi. Forget the Pacific Pivot. Forget all that fancy stuff. Maybe the election to most voters is about whether you can put gas in the tank and a payment into the credit card. Someone was bound to be dissatisfied. The administration promised so many things on its way to office it was inevitable they had to choose whom to shaft — the peons of the Big Tent or the Ringmasters.


And they shafted the peons.....



jr565 said...

Obama admin Backpedaling on Sequestration already.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPDPFibrUY&feature=youtu.be


jr565 said...

Inga:
Exiled, that does it you made up my mind for me, what if my vote is the tie breaker? NOW I MUST vote for Obama.

C'mon, as if you would ever vote for anyone else.

Synova said...

How sweet! Craftygirl thinks that women in America don't have equality and that making a decision to hire women for top government positions means Romney is a bad man.

Synova said...

".Forget Benghazi. Forget the Pacific Pivot."

What was that Pacific Pivot thing because I swear that what I *heard* was that Obama said that because he got us our military of Iraq and Afghanistan (of course, we're not at all out of Afghanistan) that it was not available to focus on China. WTF over? He could not possibly have meant to put China in a military strategic context.

I don't like the guy but that made no possible sense as a rational statement.

Synova said...

Now available, not not available and "it" meaning our military.

No doubt a Naval pivot involving inexpensive nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.

jr565 said...

AReasonable man:
Your supposed fact check is bogus. What EXACTLY did Obama say Romney said.

What an absolutely lame fact check. First it totally ignores what Obama said Romney said, which is where the lie was.
But even if you ignore that there's this:
Although “bankrupt” often conjures up images of liquidation, Romney is correct in that he called for a “managed bankruptcy.” This is a process in which the company uses the bankruptcy code to discharge its debts, but emerges from the process a leaner, less leveraged company.
Case closed. You lose. Your fact checkers lose. Obama implied that Romney was trying to destroy or liquidate the auto industry. So right there, Obama is wrong and the fact checkers are wrong. Unless you can prove that Romney did say he was going to liquidate the industry then Obama was lying (as are you for posting this piddle).
Ultimately, along with getting nearly $80 billion in loans and other assistance from the Bush and Obama administrations, GM and Chrysler did go through a managed bankruptcy.
Ah, so GM and CHrysler did go through bankruptcy under Obama? Hmmmm... You don't say.
But many independent analysts have concluded that taking the approach recommended by Romney would not have worked in 2008, simply because the credit markets were so frozen that a bankruptcy was not a viable option at the time.


See, this is an example of many independent analysts saying that Romney's recommendations would not work. Even if that is true, how is that a LIE? Many independent analysts would make the opposite argument, that Obama's managed bankrupty would not save the industry.

And if we're going to talk aobut the fact that Obama essentially went through bankruptcy ANYWAY with these companies, lets look at the results. Obama's bankruptcy fucked the bond holders creditors and rewarded his constituents the unions. And cost the govt far more than it ever will get back.

Was obama trying to liquidate the auto companies by putting them through the process?

Anonymous said...

Inga, I never once thought for a moment that you were being honest about not voting for Obama.

craftygirl: You're the one who thinks the needs of your reproductive system outweigh any responsibility we have to future generations. Talk about being focused on your own vagina, you stupid, selfish fool.

Anonymous said...

How sweet! Craftygirl thinks that women in America don't have equality and that making a decision to hire women for top government positions means Romney is a bad man.

10/22/12 11:56 PM

That's what happens when you think with your ladyparts.

jr565 said...

So funny. A trip down memory lane.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4067942


"if we keep talking about the economy we lose"

Obama is now the Mcain campaign mixed with the Bush economy. Only he's still trying to run on hope and change. and distraction. YOU are the economy Obama. All the things you say apply to YOU now.

Dante said...

Obama should just put up an add of Romney agreeing with everything he said.

Then Romney should put up ads showing how partisan the obamao is.

elyse said...

exiledonmainst

I'm sorry you had to regress to such juvenile language. Not a very forward or effective strategy. Obama 2012 Romney 1040.

jungatheart said...

re China pivot:

http://www.chinasecurity.
us/index.php?option=
com_content
&view=article&id=475

furious_a said...

Obama's campaign stategy: The Four Bs'.

WINNING!

jr565 said...

I love how Obama derides Romney not wanting to cut the military by suggesting the need for ships is the equivalent of asking for horses and bayonets. The navy itself called for more ships in 2006.

Synova said...

Bleh, thanks Deborah.

Seems pretty darn wonkish (if I understand the term "wonkish") and I'm still baffled by Obama bringing up our military in relation to acting tough with China.

And I'm thinking there is probably something important (of a wonkish nature) in comparing our military obligations primarily undertaken by the Army and Marines as a ground war and a magical "pivot" that turns them into a joint Air/Sea intimidation of China.

But it's late and I'm tired.

Anonymous said...

Not juvenile, crafty, just honest. You are ruled by your sex organs and your hormones - just as 19th century men thought women were. You're regressive and an embarrassment to any thinking woman.

However, I hope you will join us on the night of November 6, although I doubt you will be a joke-cracking mood.

jr565 said...

Cont. ships Are not an outdated outmoded means of warfare like muskets Inga. You don't know what you're talking about. And apparently neither does listen to the navy, and don't make faulty comparisons.
Doesn't mean you hae to have exactly the number of ships that the navy recommends, but it is true that you can have TOO small a military.

jr565 said...

Obama seems to think that because he likes something, it must be good for the economy. Teachers are not good for the economy. It doesn't mean that they are not a benefit to society. But they are not an economic benefit in and of themselves.
Lets say we hire ten thousand more teachers and double their pay. When those graduating college can't find a job,how we're those teachers anything but an expense.
That is not to say that we shouldn't value teachers. But they aren't a place you go to when you are trying to GROW an economy.

Synova said...

I mean... it sounds a bit like the Air Force and Navy war-gaming China, which they ought to be doing... right along with planning invasions of Great Britain and dropping nukes on Johannesburg. That's the sort of thing that the military does in its spare time, it makes a plan to kill anyone it meets. So rousting a somewhat ignored Air Force and Navy and asking them to figure out what they'd do if China develops military tourettes is probably unexceptional enough.

But at what point is that something the President brings into a public debate? See, I'm so awesome I got the Army out of Iraq so I can send the Navy to the Pacific? Where those things called aircraft carriers can land planes on them and ships called submarines go under the water so it's like horses and bayonets?

Oi.

jungatheart said...

y/w Synova. You can probably find a shorter article if you wiki air-sea battle china. The overarching idea is the military-industrial-congressional complex is working toward a type of cold war build up aimed at China, with emphasis on Air Force and Naval power. (The Army and Marines pooh-pooh that this would be enough, natch.)

Seeing Red said...

Hill is the Sec of State, her head should have rolled by now if she were Equal. But it's all CYA equalness now.

elyse said...

exiledonmainst

You're just a little too transparent. Good night sweet man.

jr565 said...

Obama did not in fact move heaven and earth to kill Osama bin laden. He launched a mission to kill a man using as all seal team. Any president would do the same thing. Romney saying you shouldn't move heaven and earth only to go after one man was not saying you shouldn't go after that one man. He was saying there are other actors who've stepped in who are equally if not moreimportant than OBL at the time. At the time he wasn't actively leading al Qaeda and in act it wasn't clear that he was even still alive. S you don't waste all your resources trying to find that one guy when you have other issues that have become predominant. Remember the whole idea of a diversion from the real war on terror? Romney was simply arguing tmot to take your eye off the ball. And his idea in act continues to be true, considering OBL has been dead for years, and yet Al Qaeda is still attacking our embassies.
There's nothing more offensive than the democrats who did EVERYTHING to demonize Budg over Iraq now demagoging Romneys position.
That seems to be the default argument style of Obama, and it's really arrogant and shameful.

Unknown said...

Mittens flipped and flopped like a fish out of water.

Comanche Voter said...

Cut the Bamster some slack. He finally figured out that planes land on aircraft carriers and "those things that go underwater" are submarines. It took him a while. And as for going after Bin Laden? He had to ask Mommy Valerie Jarrett 4 times before she finally said it was okay to take him out.

Darrell said...

Obama is a steaming pile of shit.

Romney is a shovel and a high-pressure hose.

Anonymous said...

craftygirl: I'm not a man. I'm a woman who isn't ruled by her reproductive system.

I realize that's a really, really tough concept for liberal women to grasp.

gloogle said...

Wow. The Democrat-subsidized trolls here were truly pathetic last night. I wonder if that has anything to do with Obama running out of money? Guess they just couldn't really put their hearts into it, knowing they might get paid in old bumper stickers & faded posters....

edutcher said...

Inga said...

Craftygirl if you're anything like Sandra Fluke, you are a terrific human being, brave, principled and intelligent!

Sure, that's how Ms Fluck ends up speaking to 10 people in a parking space.

As Bernard Shaw once noted, "We've determined what you are, now we're just setting the price".

She better hope her rich boyfriend marries her because, otherwise, she sold out real cheap.

Anonymous said...

Romney: War should always be a last resort.

Lefties: Flip flop! Flip flop! We know you're a crazed neocon warmonger - HuffPo told us so - so don't you lie to us!

Once again, the left accuses Romney of flip-flopping because he didn't match the image of him that lives in their heads - and nowhere else.

Obama tried to bait Mitt. Mitt didn't take the bait.

Romney won.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

if you're anything like Sandra Fluke, you are a terrific human being, brave, principled and intelligent!

So principled, as long as they're her principles. The principles of one billion Catholics can get shat on and ground into the dirt, but by golly, we're not gonna make Fluke compromise on her fine fine principles that the rest of us owe her accommodation!

Joe Schmoe said...

Tonight, when it came to free markets and national defense, Obama sounded like he was reading from the GOP platform.

It's amazing how different his rhetoric is from his actual governing.

Rusty said...

deborah said...
y/w Synova. You can probably find a shorter article if you wiki air-sea battle china. The overarching idea is the military-industrial-congressional complex is working toward a type of cold war build up aimed at China, with emphasis on Air Force and Naval power. (The Army and Marines pooh-pooh that this would be enough, natch.)

It's a good strategy because China is building its armed forces as if they are going to have to battle us. Like the Soviets before them, they are stealing our technology as fast as we can create it.

Unknown said...

Romney won.

A few people think so. Most believe Obama won.

tim in vermont said...

Obama must have been making a last ditch attempt to bait a gaffe by insulting Romney.

Either that or he thinks his reservoir of 'likability' is bottomless, despite what the polls seem to say these days.

Unknown said...

The principles of one billion Catholics can get shat on and ground into the dirt

Catholics have done that to themselves, repeatedly.

harrogate said...

Synova, you seem to think that the horses and bayonets comment somehow reflects badly on Obama. That is odd.

But oh, I forgot. Everyone knows the problem is we don't spend enough on our military. Our military is not nearly big enough, that's the problem.

Unknown said...

Our military is not nearly big enough, that's the problem.

And we don't have as many cannonballs as we used to.

Roger J. said...

My lady and I watched the debage fortified with some Jim Beam Rye Whiskey--we both felt it was a draw and in our opinion there was more agreement than disagreement. No real fireworks and no October surprise.

I was happy to see Romney return to the issue of the American economy as the keystone of our foreign policy.

I thought the moderator did a great job and asked some very good questions.

At the end of the debate, I dont think many minds will be changed. I did note that Obama learned from his coaches to maintain eye contact--something he doesnt do well. But at this point in the election cycle
too little for Mr Obama, and too late.

Imo the debate was a draw, but given Mr Romney's apparent surge in the polls, all Romney had to do was appear sane and presidential--that he did.

We will find out in the wee small hours of November 7.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I thought Romney won on looking to the future. Obama feels like he can throw in a few old bones, i.e. the tire deal, and the workers will be happy. As John Lennon said, 'All we are saying is give Romney a chance.'

furious_a said...

"Cut the Bamster some slack. He finally figured out that planes land on aircraft carriers and "those things that go underwater" are submarines."

For his next trick Admiral Obama will pronounce "corpseman" correctly.

Roger J. said...

I thought one of Mr Romney's tactics was steer the debate back to the economy--and every time he did he quote the stats about the state of the American economy. Foreign policy will, imo, never will a debate given the economic situation in the US. We have far too many (in Paul Ryan's words) 20 something Americans living in the rooms in their parents houses with fading pictures of hope and change.

Unknown said...

Our military is not nearly big enough, that's the problem.

And we don't have as many cannonballs as we used to.


And as of last night, you guys don't have Virginia too.

Roger J. said...

Re the Military--let us not forget that in Mr Obama's words A-stan is the "right war." And he frittered that away. We no longer have body counts on the MSM like we did when Bush was President; but we continue to lose troopers in A-stan--but their coffins come home unremarked and grieved only by their families.

Mr Obama could not even prosecute the "right war" in A-stan. Lets get rid of this charlatan.

Rusty said...

harrogate said...
Synova, you seem to think that the horses and bayonets comment somehow reflects badly on Obama. That is odd.

Yeah. It kinda does. Soldiers and Marines are still issued bayonets with their equipment. And not too long ago our Special Operators in Afghanistan rode into battle on horses.

But oh, I forgot. Everyone knows the problem is we don't spend enough on our military. Our military is not nearly big enough, that's the problem.

Quality not quantity, although a couple more aircraft carriers would be nice. They have a way of focusing the attention of the bad actors.
You know, of course, that providing for our defense is something that our government is legally obligated to do. You know that, right?
Say. You're a lefty, maybe you know. Has Iran delivered those ballistic missiles to Venezuela yet? You know. The ones that can reach the US.

harrogate said...

"And as of last night, you guys don't have Virginia too."

Only if Virginians are going with the hilarious "Hannity version" of whatg was discussed. In the real world, Obama's words on military spending were reasonable, and Romney's ignorance shone through.

DADvocate said...

Inga said, I sure as hell won't vote for Romney

Do tell. The surprise announcement of the night.

Scott M said...

Almost 900 comments? Has anyone mentioned that ex-wall paper hanger turned dictator, author, and lampshade designer?

harrogate said...

Rusty we are hardly being miserly on our military spending. Only a fool would look at our military budget and say, gee, that's not enough. Thanks for modeling this point.

Roger J. said...

scottM--I take your point and well said. WWII was the right war--A-stan might be the right war if we were committed to win it as in WWII

exhelodrvr1 said...

No way to know from his comment about the number of ships whether or not Romney understands the use of the military, but Obama's response pretty clearly showed that he does not understand how it is used.

Rusty said...

harrogate said...
Rusty we are hardly being miserly on our military spending. Only a fool would look at our military budget and say, gee, that's not enough. Thanks for modeling this point.

You might of missed the part about it being illegal not to fund the military. As to how much. That's a matter of opinion.
So yeah my point still stands.

wyo sis said...

Romney, very wisely, didn't rule out any foreign policy options except abandoning Israel and apologizing to terrorists.
I guess that might sound a little like agreeing with Obama on foreign policy, except for the Israel and terrorist part. It might sound like flip flopping if you already know what you think he thinks.
It also might sound like an adult way to go about foreign policy.

Rusty said...

exhelodrvr1 said...
No way to know from his comment about the number of ships whether or not Romney understands the use of the military, but Obama's response pretty clearly showed that he does not understand how it is used.

Either does Harrogate.
He mistakenly assumes that the entitlement ride is going to last forever if we just de-fund stuff like the military and nasa, etc.
Those systems, SS and medicare -medicade are severely broken. They cannot exist in their present state. There are simply too few contributors to make the system sustainable.
I'm saying this as a soon to be 65 retired person. The money I paid in just isn't there. Congress has seen fit to use it for other things and I don't want my kids or anybody elses kids working their tails off to support me.

harrogate said...

Why bring up the legality of not funding the military when we're outspending everyone on the planet by staggering amounts?

The thing you say you pointed out is a stupid thing to point out as a standalone point, Rusty. But if your purpose in doing it is to suggest we're not spending enough (as Romney has caterwauled repeatedly), then that's also stupid.

So you might stop writing stupid things.

wyo sis said...

Rusty, good point. As a 61 year old who expects to work until 70 I know exactly what you mean.

Roger J. said...

if I may suggest, the money we spend on our military SHOULD be directly proport.ionate to the threat we face. I think Bob Scheiffer asked a good question re what is our national interest interest--Will leave it to the observers of the debate to parse the answers.

MadisonMan said...

Does anyone have a link to ratings for the three debates?

I didn't even follow the live blog of this one. I watched the first one, then followed the live blog, then nothing. I wonder if my trajectory is similar to anyone else's.

Matt Sablan said...

I vaguely remember under Bush being told we weren't spending enough, and that's why our people were dying. Good thing all the military deaths stopped once Obama was elected, since we're clearly spending the right amount.

Oh, wait.

Roger J. said...

Madison Man--I had to teach Monday night to I missed much of the debate. As to "ratings" of the debate? Not a big deal to me. And I have to say have no interest in seeing what pundits have to say. I was impressed, really, by how much the candidates agreed on foreign policy issues, and the disagreements were on small issues.

Other than that I had a good evening enjoying my rye whiskey.

theribbonguy said...

I didn't get to this thread until this morning, so I started reading it at around the 600 comment mark.

Good Lord...the house trolls are thrashing around in faux ecstasy !!

What I saw and what they claim they saw are of another world.

All Romney had to do was show he was a calm reasoned man that wasn't going to turn into BOOOOSH!!!!

Mission Accomplished.

X said...

MadisonMan said...
Does anyone have a link to ratings for the three debates?

I didn't even follow the live blog of this one. I watched the first one, then followed the live blog, then nothing. I wonder if my trajectory is similar to anyone else's.


I stopped mid 2009 during the weekly prime time major epic completely forgettable speeches that endlessly repeat the same worn out catchphrases and false premises which I reject the rejection of.

Matt Sablan said...

I wonder if anyone has had the heart to break it to Obama that we probably have more bayonets than in the past.

sakredkow said...

I couldn't stand the split screen all f*%$in' night. They both look more than a little ridiculous posing for the cameras while the other's talking. Not their fault, it's the media who thinks that's what we want to look at all the time now.

Good debate more or less. Too much sniping not enough discussion. Props for Romney for disowning the neocon American exceptionalism bullshite that reigned so much damage on us. Or at least he didn't embrace it. Obama was most effective when he wasn't attacking Romney and when he laid out his own vision.

Can't believe in four debates we didn't have a single question on the environment and nobody brought it up seriously. An inconvenient truth indeed.

Synova said...

"But oh, I forgot. Everyone knows the problem is we don't spend enough on our military. Our military is not nearly big enough, that's the problem."

I got out of the military during Clinton's "peace dividend" reductions.

One person transfers out of your unit, then another, then another, and somehow no one transfers *in* and you still have the same normal work load. The first thing that went was what might be called "military" training.

And now we've listened to how many years (pre-Obama, of course) of how repeated tours to the middle east are too hard for our people and their families?

I'm sorry that we can't haul a bunch of untrained teenagers off our streets and shove them through a few weeks of how-to-wear-the-uniform give them a gun and tell them to go kill Krauts anymore to rotate in to war zones.

There is a choke point to the rate that the military can be expanded once it's been diminished. Can you PROMISE that there isn't going to be a threat 10 years out that even you agree has to be met?

I don't know how long it takes to build a nuclear sub or an aircraft carrier but it takes 10 years to staff one.

tim in vermont said...

Maybe now that Obama has Aircraft Carriers and Submarines figured out, somebody can explain to him that "intercontinental railroads" don't exist?

X said...

Big Tex press conference live in 2 minutes:

http://theticket.com/

Synova said...

(I suspect that one "crews" an aircraft carrier or something other than "staff" an aircraft carrier, but whatever. The AF also has dormitories so there you go.)

Matt Sablan said...

"Can you PROMISE that there isn't going to be a threat 10 years out that even you agree has to be met?"

-- Clinton promised something along those lines. See: Iraq, Afghanistan, for how well that promise held up.

jr565 said...

Jake Diamond:
And we don't have as many cannonballs as we used to.


Again with the stupid snark. One of my friends (a lib natch) was actually posting on Facebook about the horses and bayonets but attributing it to Romney, as if Romney had argued we weren't going to cut them rather than that it was Obama making the argument using an absolutely stupid example.
And then you pile on with an even dumber example. Tell me Jake, does the navy still use ships (along with aircraft carriers and submarines)? Is the navy arguing that it needs even more ships to complete its missions. Is anyone. Asking for more cannonballs to complete theirs? Would Obama make the same comparison when talking to the Navy about what it needs to complete missions (ie - the request for ships is as redundant as asking for more horses and muskets or cannonballs) if he did , then that show he would have zero grasp of the needs of the military and would look like one of the biggest doofuses we've ever had as president.
What I'm amazed by is that liberals always flock to the stupidest comments, and then pile on and say they are smart.
What I think it really is about is that Obama was being snarky (with his "we have these things called submarines" type comments) and liberals respond to snarky better than any reasoned comment. And they think snarky means smart. So they think Obama got a zinger in. No, Obama just looked like a snarky jerk who doesn't understand the needs of the Navy and who is apt to make silly comparisons.
And I bet were going to have liberals in a few days arguing that Romney doesn't know what a submarine is and is actually asking for more horses and bayoneted ( and muskets and cannonballs).

Matt Sablan said...

I liked all the pictures of military people training with bayonets and horses. And all the people who said: "Maybe Obama's confused about what our Navy has because the DNC shows him pictures of Russian ships instead of American ones."

sakredkow said...

I'm an Obama supporter and I didn't care for how he handled the bayonets remark. He point was well-taken but he was too disrespectful in the manner he made it. I was also surprised that Romney took it without a protest.

jr565 said...

As an example Inga wrote:

Whaaaat?! The Navy wants bayonets and horses?

if I'm parsing that sentence it sounds like she's ridiculing it. Only it was Obama making the comparison not Romney. So if she were at all morally consistent, she'd have to say that that was a really stupid statement by Obama. Since it did after all get her to say "Whaaaat?!" Which sounds like she is shocked by the request.
But you know she's attributing this to Romney since she later piles in with a call for more muskets and ridicules that notion.
For the record, it IS ridiculous to compare the request for more ships in the Navy (made by the Navy mind you) to outmoded weapons and means of transportation no longer in use (at least the horses part)or in use only in specialized situations.
And of course, even dumber is the fact that the military has not stopped providing soldiers with bayonets.

Calypso Facto said...

#horsesandbayonets is the new #1 in the Twittersphere, replacing #notoptimal.

Laughter is quickly eroding the President's previously lofty perch.

jr565 said...

Harrogate wrote.

"And as of last night, you guys don't have Virginia too."

Only if Virginians are going with the hilarious "Hannity version" of whatg was discussed. In the real world, Obama's words on military spending were reasonable, and Romney's ignorance shone through.


No they weren't even close to reasonable, since of course Romney was merely quoting what the Navy had said about their need for a certain number of ships. And Obama called that request the equivalent of asking for horses and bayonets as if ships were redundant to the Navy.would Obama ever tell the Navy that their request for ships was like asking for horses? The navy would be scratching their head saying who is this moron sitting in the White House.does he not know that we still use ships? (And bayonets while we're at it, and horses even albeit in more specialized roles).
So in fact it was Obama's ignorance that shone through since he ended up making an argument that was equivalent to saying "asking for ships is like asking form horse ridden cavalry.
The army isn't requesting more cavalry (on horseback) but the Navy is still using ships. And apparently Obama doesn't realize that we still issue bayonets in the military. Maybe he meant muskets and cannonballs.(I.e. weapons that are actually redundant).
Now, the reasoned argument would be to say that we can get by with only 200 ships and that Obama therefore disagrees with the Navy's request for more. One might agree or disagree with that argument but at least it wasn't resorting a suggestion that a request for ships was like a request for more cavalry. Unless he wants to tell the Navy that there demand for ships is akin to asking for muskets and horses.id like to see him try that.

Known Unknown said...

I see Inga quickly gave up on flip flops.

Maybe she should try sandals.

Rusty said...

harrogate said...
Why bring up the legality of not funding the military when we're outspending everyone on the planet by staggering amounts?

I pointed it out to to illustrate that unfunding the military is not an option.

Yes we outspend everyone else because we're defending more than just ourselves. You know that right? We have treaty obligations that must be upheld. Should we reneg on those too?

The thing you say you pointed out is a stupid thing to point out as a standalone point, Rusty. But if your purpose in doing it is to suggest we're not spending enough (as Romney has caterwauled repeatedly), then that's also stupid.

So you might stop writing stupid things.


As far as writing stupid things go...Well. You've more than proved my point.

jr565 said...

By the way, for Obama and the rubes. There are these things called submarines and aircraft carriers. And they need support from things we call ships. Oh, and the navy said they needed more not less.

Here is a graphic for example that shows the supporting role ships play for aircraft carriers.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/carriers/powerhouse/cvbg.asp

You'd think for all his snark that Obama would know that fact. Especially if he's going to condescendingly lecture Romney on he fact that we have submarines.

jr565 said...

Phx wrote:
I'm an Obama supporter and I didn't care for how he handled the bayonets remark. He point was well-taken but he was too disrespectful in the manner he made it. I was also surprised that Romney took it without a protest.

why would his point be well taken? A ship is not like a horse. He's trying to refer to redundant means of transportation and warfare, but ships are not like horse ridden cavalry. They are still a vital part of our Navy. You can't have air craft carriers without them. And bayonets are not like muskets or cannonballs. Our military still uses them and provides them to our soldiers. If Romney argued that soldiers weren't getting enough bayonets that would be a clear example of the military tring to fight wars on the cheap. That would be like not providing body armor or helmets.
You are on board with the Ida that he was an asshole in making the point, but you should get on board that he wasn't in fact making a valid point at all.

jr565 said...

And as has been stated we may not send troops out on horses to act as cavalry in normal circumstances, but the military still uses horses. And in certain cases, still uses horse ridden cavalry.

ken in tx said...

Being retired Air Force, I understand the Air Force point of view. I also understand the limitations of it. Someone once asked, “Will the US ever have a successful, joint air, sea, and land military force?” The answer is, “Yes, it will be called the US Navy.” From my point of view, the Navy combines the best elements of all the services. Except, that the Air Force treats their people better.

jungatheart said...

"It's a good strategy because China is building its armed forces as if they are going to have to battle us. Like the Soviets before them, they are stealing our technology as fast as we can create it."

Agree, to a point. As I understand it, China is building up defensively and they're not known for their wars of aggression. Such a large part of their population is poverty-stricken that I don't see how beginning a war would benefit them.

Considering their productivity, they are understandably interested in having more of a presence in the sea lanes of their area. Of course we must keep on top of it and maintain our presence to be available for Japan, etc., but acknowledge that China has some expectation of being the big kid on the block in that area. But let's face it, the MICC has a huge interest in this.

I think Romney hit exactly the right tone, saying China is our friend, but we can't let them take advantage of us by stealing our intellectual property and manipulating their currency. (I don't understand the currency issue; I've read something along the lines that we are so in hock to them that their manipulations are understandable, that is, our paper they are holding is, in actuality, worthless.)

Ultimately, a good, old-fashioned cold war build-up has large benefits other than jobs. On many levels we loved and respected the Russians during the Cold War. But as Thomas Barnett has pointed out, the worry is escalation to actual war.

http://www.manilatimes.
net/index.php/sunday
-times/front-pages
/23704-the-geopolitics
-of-china-a-great
-power-enclosed

Known Unknown said...

Why bring up the legality of not funding the military when we're outspending everyone on the planet by staggering amounts?


Harro would be surprised we have some common ground re: military spending. I am not a fan of more spending for more spendings sake. I actually think it's possible to cut certain military budgets and seek efficiencies in those budgets.

I want a smart and effective military, not just the biggest.

jungatheart said...

"The thing you say you pointed out is a stupid thing to point out as a standalone point, Rusty. But if your purpose in doing it is to suggest we're not spending enough (as Romney has caterwauled repeatedly), then that's also stupid."

I wonder why Obama declared that Sequestration wasn't going to happen?

elyse said...

exiledonmainst

not tough. just very sad. Also, this entire correspondence with you was sad. You haven't given me one intelligent reason to think your opinion matters. It's all emotional. No substantive ideas, nothing. You attack and attack.

Rusty said...


Agree, to a point. As I understand it, China is building up defensively and they're not known for their wars of aggression.

China is feeling its power and our weakness. That is why they are disputing the ownership of islands owned by Japan and the Phillipines. Aircraft carriers are to project power. You don't need them if you're just protecting your shores.
Taiwan is nervous.

Would you rather have the worlds sea lanes protected by China or the United States?

Rusty said...

EMD said...
Why bring up the legality of not funding the military when we're outspending everyone on the planet by staggering amounts?


Harro would be surprised we have some common ground re: military spending. I am not a fan of more spending for more spendings sake. I actually think it's possible to cut certain military budgets and seek efficiencies in those budgets.

I want a smart and effective military, not just the biggest.

Like I said. Quality not quatity. The best of the latest.

damikesc said...

Reasonable, he didn't attack on Benghazi, because he knows Obama administration went by what the CIA told them, it's on record.

So he's also throwing Petraeus under the bus. Who didn't see that coming?

Of course, maybe if Obama could've bothered to attend an occasional security briefing...

«Oldest ‹Older   801 – 941 of 941   Newer› Newest»