Does Mitt Romney know something the rest of us don't? Watching tonight's third and final Presidential debate on what was supposed to be foreign policy, I got the distinct impression that he, and not President Barack Obama, was the incumbent. And Obama, who hounded Romney aggressively throughout the night, seemed more like a challenger who is down in the polls. Both kept straying into our domestic issues, where there are real divides. But in the foreign arena, they basically agreed.
As someone who has spent the last four years dealing with foreign princes and traveling across the globe, I thought Obama sounded like a President. But he failed to demonstrate that Mitt Romney is a war-monger or "all over the place," despite saying so repeatedly. For his part, Romney handled the constant attacks very well, and was even able to chide the President twice that he was there to discuss issues.
If Romney intended to establish that he's no neo-conservative itchy to start wars, he succeeded.
Obama wins on substance. Barely. Romney wins on style. Barely.
Overall, I say Romney won. I particularly disliked the way Obama evaded a direct answer to the question whether he would regard an attack on Israel as the equivalent of an attack against the United States. How hard is it to answer a question?
What's your call?
11:00 AM Update: A BBC Survey indicates that, in numerous nations throughout the world, Obama is the favored candidate. In France, he's supported by a whopping 72% of the people. Israel was not among the nations polled.
69 comments:
Agreed.
Unless one of them realy steps on it in the remaining days this is going to be a close election.
Do we chose 4 more years or roll the dice? Still undecided
11:15, I just updated to say that overall, I think Romney won. Barely. And that's primarily bc he did not look like a loose cannon.
I call it a toss up. Neither one of these guys are knocking my socks off.
The big loser of the day was Jim Fioretino - by a self imposed knockout.
A slam dunk win for Romney! His goal was to convince voters that he could be a strong commander-in-chief and world leader and he did that. Obama "went small" with his personal attacks and glib remarks. The "horses and bayonets" remark was smug and childish. He came across as a desperate challenger trying to win points with silly zingers. Romney scored a body blow with his criticism of Obama's "apology tour" that resulted in our image actually diminishing in the middle east. And Iran is definitely a bigger threat than it was four years ago. Romney returning to our lousy economy time and again reinforced the need for change. His demeanor was presidential and he may have "sealed the deal" with many independents and undecideds tonight.
A bit off topic but who has noticed that there are far less yard signs for the presidential candidates than in any election in my memory? Four years ago there were Obama signs everywhere. Seems like most folks are keeping their preferences more private. Tha does not bode well for Obama. The "hope and change" hysteria has evaporated. Even bumper stickers are less prevalent. A lot has to break over the next two weeks for a clear winner to emerge.
Sort of how Mtittens Romnney igonored the "bombers on the way" question about Isreal. You can pick and choose like the teabaggers O'Hare but it does show your new right wing bias.
It was hard to argue with Romney tonight, as in the other debates, becasue his most used quotes are "me too". He is exactly what Santorum and other Republicans said he would be, a man who would say anything on any position to get elected.
Now that he knows he has the right wing racist anti-Obama voters, he has swung so far to the Left, he made Obama sound like the Republican tonight.
Romney is a man with no conviction or soul, just an empty suit that has changed his position on just about every issue multiple times just in the past year alone.
If he is elected, people will not know what they are getting because Romeny doesn't know what his position will be next week much less next year.
Be
The "racist anti-Obama voters"?
Maybe you should revisit Bernie's previous post on Mormonism to see where the real hate and bigotry is coming from.
And it isn't from the Right.
Although the debate was supposed to be on foreign policy, the bottom line is "Is the country better off today than four years ago?".
Remember the payroll tax break is expiring which will lower spending as checks are reduced and this certainly won't help a weak economy.
Obama will win the election. Then just see how temperate the teabaggers are. They will be screaming voter fraud, muslim intereference and terrorist ballot tampering. Fox Nois ehas already claimed it in Ohio, before the election. Let the pissing in the well comence.
The President is head and shoulders better than Romney and will win re-eelction. Tonight just further showed how out of his depths Rmoney is. No wonder he just agreed with the President on everytihg.
Now go brew up some of that cryin tea, and sip your blues away. Sane America will protect you.
The fundamentals continue to favor President Obama. Average leads in Ohio of 3-5 points. Up in WI, IA, NH, NV. Close in CO, VA and FL. The polling models show the president with a 70% chance of winning (since we don't elect presidents on the basis of national polling, any national polls are pretty meaningless at this point).
Another interesting tidbit that the media hasn't honed in on yet is the voting advantage that the Democrats have built up in those swing states as of today. Early voting in Ohio has the president at +15 with over 20% of the vote already counted; that's devastating for Romney. Dems are destroying early voting in Nevada and Iowa (also winning in North Carolina, but I don't see a win there).
Florida will come down to ground game, and the president's team is stronger in that regard. An often overlooked point is that Virginia has a former conservative congressman on the ballot (Virgil Goode), who was polling at 9% in recent polls. While it is highly unlikely he gets anything near that, a 1-2 point result would be devastating for Romney.
Just focus on the fundamentals, and you'll see why the president will be reelected.
ahhh it IS sweet to know that the vote of all you tea-baggers doesn't matter here in PA... Funny how a state with a recently elected R Senator and R governor is un-winnable for Mittens
Big win for Obama, check and mate
Tim
Again, Obama looked small, petty, and mean. That will be a turn off for many of those who are still undecided.
Scott Armstrong
Are you completely nuts?? Romney changed his positions again from even a few weeks ago..On Afghanistan, he said they'll definitely be leaving in 2014..Only last week Ryan said they wont give a drop dead date because that would be wrong to tip off the enemy..Romney is pandering again..Luckily , every poll that existed last night gave the president the edge because once again, unlike romney, he wasn't lying out of his teeth..Romney was outclassed completely last night..
Romney again switched his positions, he will say anything to get elected. I don't trust him at all, because he will be a bait and switch candidate if he is elected.
"I particularly disliked the way Obama evaded a direct answer to the question whether he would regard an attack on Israel as the equivalent of an attack against the United States."
I thought maybe I was watching a different debate, so I looked it up:
In defining our role in a potential conflict between Israel and Iran and would either candidate be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States, Obama said America would stand with Israel.
Obama, last night: “I will stand with Israel if they are attacked. And this is the reason why, working with Israel, we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history"
How much more of a direct answer do you need?
No one knows what the hell Romney will do if he is elected president..Again, like he has on domestic issues, he changed all his positions again last night..What happened to the crazed war hawk from the primaries?? Not even going back that far he has stated that he wouldnt say when he'd leave Afghanistan time and time and time again..Now he finally got the news that the people want to get the hell out and he says, me too, me too! He's pathetic..
Romney showed would be "a strong commander-in-chief and world leader"? The guy who thinks we need the Navy of 1916? The "world leader" who managed to insult our closest ally on his Olympics visit? The "commander-in-chief" who doesn't know Iran's coast is the Persian Gult (the most critical waterway in the world) and thinks Iran needs Syria to an "outlet to the sea"? Romeny sweated like Nixon throughout the debate and had the look on his face that Obama had in the first debate ("I wish I wasn't here"). Too bad for the President that most folks were probably watching the Giants obliterate the Cards or Chicago stomp Detroit. This election goes down to the wire but Obama wins by taking Ohio.
Remember, if any Republicans tell you:
1 - Romney "did what he had to do"
2 - The President looked angry and took cheap shots
3 - The moderator let this get out of hand
4 - The "momentum" is still on Romney's side
That is code for "We lost the debate." The polls are reverting back to the mean. The Quinnipiac poll is particularly hard for the GOP to swallow. While they had the President up 10 just a few weeks ago (come on, people; Obama won Ohio by 4 points in 2008, nobody really expects him to win by 10 this time around) they still have him up by 5 points (at the crucial 50% mark) with two weeks left to go and a full 20% of their electorate having already voted.
Let's stop kidding ourselves. Obama has a clear lead in Ohio, and if (and when) he wins, then Romney will have no other paths to 270EVs. Nevada is solidly blue this cycle.
Well, obviously, the blogger's political ideology is showing. Nearly everyone has written that Obama wiped the floor with the amateur-hour Romney. Romney made ridiculous, uninformed answers and when he got particularly befuddled, he just agreed with Obama. He wanted a continued presence in Iraq. He wants us to get tough on Syria but backs exactly what the President is going. He wants to get tough on Iran but he doesn't want to do anything more than what Obama has done. Romney wants to foolishly start a trade war with China because he thinks he knows more than a room full of macro-economists.
It was actually sad to watch how unprepared Romney was - so much that Romney's spin team started in the spin room 10 minutes before the debate ended.
"There are these things called 'aircraft carriers' and these things under water called 'nuclear submarines.'"
Bwahahahah
Teabaggers?
Yawn.
"Big win for Obama, check and mate"
Really?
We'll see about that soon enough ...
Remember, attacking Romney is not a foreign policy.
DEAD LIBYAN AMBASSADORS
5:09:
Focusing on the fundamentals in what universe? Has to be an alternate one, not the one the rest of us live in day to day.
Obama is polling at 47%. If he's still polling below 50%...even if he is leading, in any poll. He loses.
Period.
@9:27AM
Look at the polls in Ohio, then check the methodology.
Quinnipiac had the most accurate Ohio polls in 2008. That's gotta be scary for your team.
The polling averages put Obama up by at least 1.8 points. This election very well could be decided by Romney's attempt to make a quick buck and poke Obama in the eye by writing that Op/Ed back in 2009. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."
9:27 - You clearly have no understanding of polling. But if it makes you feel better to base your delusions on national tracking polls and not state polls, be myt guest.
Both did well. An incumbent should do well. The challenger need only look competent and, therefore, electable. Obama accomplished this four years ago. Romney accomplished it last night.
Some great Romney moments:
Romney stated that Syria was Iran's "gateway to the sea." Apparently, Mr. Romney isn't aware Syria and Iran do not even share a border.
Romney will call a China a currency manipulator on day 1 triggering a global trade war. But he also said he wants to improve relations with China. I guess Mr. Romney does not shop at Walmart.
Mr. Romney stated we have less ships than in 1916. This statement is so inane, it doesn't even need a rebuttal other than Obama's "yes, we have less horses and bayonets too."
Romney was completely outclassed and showed he has no foreign policy expertise whatsoever.
Both will be ineffectual Presidents if reelected/elected in the current political environment. Neither party will lose or gain enough ground this year to make any significant progress on their respective agendas. The next mid terms will historically run counter to whichever party is in the White House and you'll have 2 years of stalling and positioning for the 2016 Presidential Elections.
Knowing all of this, I leaned ever so slightly towards Obama to start. Romney drubbed him in the first debate and made this the competitive race it is today. Second debate was a better showing from Obama and a marginal win, but certainly not a convincing win. Both of them seemed whiny and evaded direct answers in favor of overcooked talking points. Last night, while not to the scale of the first debate, was a clear Obama win and if you think otherwise, you are really just stretching things to fit your own point of view.
If Obama loses, that first debate will be the one historians will point to as the main reason. I know it seems silly when you're talking about a sitting President, but first impressions matter and Romney cinched a lot of voters that night looking for a credible alternative, which to that point he wasn't.
In sporting terms, the President won the match 2-1, but Romeny can probably brag a win based on point differential from the 1st debate beat down.
In the end I'll stick with the guy who has experience and who I know (both good and bad points here) over the one I don't. The details I do know from Romney's 5 point plan don't convice me it will be a surefire way to improve the economy so I don't see a reason to tear things up and go back to square one.
I'd like someone to clarify for me if possible, Romney's claim "that we are 4 years closer to Iran having nuclear capabilities" Is that suppossed to be damning? He repeated that a few times, which to me is just like saying "I'm 4 years older than I was 4 years ago" Is he saying if he or McCain were in office that Iran would have been neutered by now? If so, he didn't really make it crystal clear as to how he would have accomplished that if it were him instead of Obama.
Scott
At least 1.8 percent?
WOW! What a blowout waiting to happen ... (chuckle, chuckle).
We will see soon enough if Obama really WAS the smartest and greatest President in the history of the United States --- just like the Lame Stream Media has been telling me since even BEFORE 0-bama was elected last time.
Somebody should have asked the Nobel Peace Prize winner, "What is the capital of Israel?"
DEAD LIBYAN AMBASSADORS
The difference in Ohio in 2004 was 2.1%. In 2000 it was 3.5%.
In 2008 it was 4.5%.
I'd say that a minimum of 1.8% is pretty good. Mitt Romney has never been ahead in the averages in Ohio, and 1.8 is the minimum. Quinnipiac has Obama up by 5.
And voter registration numbers in Ohio have overwhelmingly been in favor of Democrats over the last 4 years. It explains the overwhelming defeat of the anti-collective bargaining initiative in 2011, which Romney supported.
Don't underestimate how disliked Romney is among these blue collar white workers, many of whom have suffered from the "pioneers of outsourcing" like Bain.
5:09, You sound a tad worried. No question that Obama wins if the election were held today, but things seem to be going in the wrong direction for him.
"ahhh it IS sweet to know that the vote of all you tea-baggers doesn't matter here in PA..."
Democracy in action. This is the kind of thinking that will convince morons like "Tim" to go out and rip out signs. It doesn't matter.
Don't under-estimate how much the Lame Stream Media lies or what it will go to in order to see their Hero re-elected ...
... we will see soon enough what is what.
DEAD LIBYAN AMBASSADORS
I guess the "Teabagger" insult is still cool to toss around here, then ...
Nifty, just so I know the rules of engagement.
DEAD LIBYAN AMBASSADORS
I suppose BOH is on the bandwagon for "Tea Party" Tom Smith? He's one of those "legitimate rape" guys.
I smile when I think that the Repubs will not only have 4 more years of the Socialist Kenyan Manchurian Candidate but EIGHT more years of Hillary Clinton to follow. You know Hillary is going to roll into the Whitehouse in a landslide.
11:08, This is about the presidential debate, not the Smith-Casey race.
I just don't see how people can trust Romney anymore. He has taken every position on every issue to try to get elected. We need people who will say what they mean, even if it's unpopular. That's not Mitt Romney.
Clearly Obama had to call Romney out on his inconsistencies throughout his bid for the Presidency. Obama did not do during the first debate and paid a price for. Words and principles matter. As President, you have to be very calculated in your words as you do not get any do-overs or you cannot etch-sketch you positions or comments away if they compromise or foreign policy or national security.
Romney’s gaffes and flip flops are an example of his inexperience and it is completely appropriate for the President to call him on it.
Romney’s strategy is to try to ride this out and hope people are not paying attending to his changing positions. The examples are endless.
Obama has been steadfast on his positions and principle when it comes to Foreign Policy. One the occasions where Obama evolved on an issue, he has been forthcoming and provides sound logic. When Romney changed positions (sometimes one day to the next), he denies the fact that he has changed. He will go down as the “Switch and Bait” candidate.
7:46, I believe Obama evaded the question. The question was not whether he would stand with Israel, whatever that means, but whether he would regard an attack on Israel the same way he would regard an attack on the U.S. He did not answer that question.
Mitt Romney has showed his true colors throughout these three debates. He is an empty suit that needs anti-bullying counseling. He comes off like the little rich spoiled brat that he is. The President conversely comes off as a statesman with a handle on all of the important issues. He has brought respect back to the United States of America. The only thing Romney said about international affairs was either totally wrong or he agreed with the President's position and actions.
The truly amazing thing was his flip flop on exiting Afganistan in 2014. Six months ago he blasted the President and now he is agreeing.
Obama tacked right in his foreign policy rhetoric, rhetoric that does not at all match his foreign policy actions or results to date.
Once again, we here from teh Empty Suit. Teh Won who will "have more flexibility after the election". Teh Won who out-and-out lied about Romney's statement on Russia. Teh Ignorant Won who thinks Russia just up and quit.
But he got away with it, because Romney is a deeply flawed candidate put up by the R establishment. As the Scott who is not an Armstrong said above, "Both will be ineffectual Presidents if reelected/elected".
The MOR crowd has always made me laugh, though. You are either for the government solution or you are not. Romney may or may not end up doing what he says he will do, and you could say you are not sure if you believe him.
On the other hand, we know exactly what Obama is going to do. He will continue to spend and play the class warfare game, he will continue to expand the public sector because he believes it is the solution and that he knows better than we do what to do with our resources. He will continue to make deals, he will continue to push an ultra-liberal social agenda, he will continue his "We have had a problem dictating" apologist foreign policy and continue to position the U.S.A. as just another seat at the table.
He is what he has shown himself to be. How the hell can someone be on the fence about that? How the hell can one say to oneself, "Well, all those things are really not bad for the country, but he was really good on TV?"
-Clem
"really bad" not "really not bad"
-Clem
Clem. Romney surrounds himself by Bush advisors. We seen 8 years of that strategy both on domestic and foreign policies. Forward.
CHUCK TODD says it is "too late for Obama to disqualify Romney" and that 0-bama needs to re-qualify himself.
Yep, Chuck Todd, himself. Google it. My, my, my --- HOW interesting, indeed!
Has Chuck Todd transformed into a dreaded "Teabagger" all of a sudden???
Ha ha --- must have!!!
We will see what is what soon enough, as in two weeks ...
DEAD LIBYAN AMBASSADORS
I'd just like to say that your signature, "Dead Libyan Ambassadors," is really offensive (not to mention inaccurate since only one ambassador died). It's clear, though most of us are on here to have an informed discussion, you're just a troll.
I pray that this extremist fever breaks after President Obama wins reelection.
I agree that the constant reference to dead Libyan ambassadors (4 people died, one of them an ambassador) in poor taste. Obviously, President Obama had no desire to see anyone killed. I am asking the commenter to knock it off.
Bernie,
If you remember, and you should because it was only last night, Romney was asked and evaded the same stupid "attack on Israel " question. You know they both would answer the question "yes" but saber rattling will get us nowhere.
I don't have to rip out yard signs this year because ROMNEY DOESN'T HAVE A CHANCE!
Tim ( or Timothy, if your prefer)
"Timothy," Romney answered the question differently. He stated he would use force. Obama did not.
Hey Armstrong put your name on all your posts. Why stop signing off on your writing now?
You too Rolf. You can spot your wacky childish posts from a mile away,
But the question asked whether they would consider an attack on Israel to be an attack on the United States.
The obvious answer should be NO. It would be considered an attack on our closest ally in the region and we would respond sufficiently to support Israel. But it is NOT an attack on the United States, just like an attack in Britain or Australia or the Vatican would be considered an attack on the US.
The answer should be YES. Israel's stability is vital to our own national security. Here is an excerpt of that portion of the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MKKtZgb0dI&feature=youtube_gdata
" But it is NOT an attack on the United States, just like an attack in Britain or Australia or the Vatican would be considered an attack on the US."
Your statement is inaccurate. We have treaties with numerous nations, including Great Britain, that makes attacks on them the equivalent as attacks on us. It's called collective defense. It's the whole point of NATO.
It's a bit late for Obama to defend his Israel policy. Romney could have called him on the parade of jihadists who have visited the White House. Obama has been hostile to Israel because his constituents are largely hostile to Israel. Jews will vote for Democrats in big numbers, again. The size of that margin will be significantly reduced, however. Same will be true for the shrinking Democrat Catholic vote. The party took these voters for granted and Obama has done his best to run them off. That's why PA has gone from a 20 point win to a 5 point (or less) race in just four years.
Bernie, it's just not the case. Nobody would say "The United States just got attacked" if there was an attack in a foreign country.
My statement is accurate. People go overboard with the pro-Israel schtick. We're not attached at the hip, and they have one of the worst human rights violations records in the developed world. Intifada anyone?
@2:21PM
Give me a break. Obama won PA by 10 points in a wave election in 2008. Kerry won by 2.5 points in 2004, and Gore won by 4 points in 2000. What world are you living in that had Obama up by 20 points in PA? Current polling shows him up 5-7 points. I'll take it.
Typical PA. Obama wins. Smith wins. Go figure.
Bernie, you are really playing to the crowd at this point. Romney was asked a specific question regarding a phone call advsisng him, as Presdient, that Isrealie planes were on their way to Iran, what would he do?
Romney immediately punted and said, I won't answer hypothetical questions and went on to do the ususal politcal pandering.
Obama was as specific as Romeny. No American candidate for President is going to say, I will do whatever Isreal wants me to do. Both Romney and Obama repeatesly stated that the security of Isreal will be protected by the US.
That has been the US policy since Truman, and has only become stronger. Republican and Democratic Preiddents have maintained that policy and you know it.
That is not to say that the US must take into acount that there are other countries in the area and unless your plan is to nuke them all out of existence and shield Isreal with a magic radiation proof dome, we need to keep lines open with the Arab states.
Stop demagoging for the far Right, it does not becime you. Besides, your boy Dent is a shoe in and will continue to be unless he drinks too much tea.
Whose side would Romney or Obama be should Jesus decend from the sky in Israel. Would either of them join in with him or join the armies lined up against them.
Can it be that the baseball world series will decide the presidency... Can a Detroit Tiger AL victory decide the election for Romney and a San Francisco NL victory decide it for Obama.
I like Turtles...and Obama.
5:09. teabagger logic.
Bernie,
Of course the French love him; he is so far to the Left they feel a kindred spirit. They are all convinced he is going to be re-elected because he is so popular here. That tells me their media is as bad as ours.
Scott Armstrong
Good thing Romney's not running for president of some other country. It looks like he'll win here. Unlikely in France.
I'll bet John Kerry could win France.
They elected Francois Holland. That tells you all you need to know. His campaign promise was to raise taxes on the rich to 75%. Now that the tax is in place capital is fleeing the county.
Scott Armstrong
When it comes to coalition building and reapexr around the globe, the international support for Obama speaks for itself.
Romney's attempt at an over seas trip was a disaster. He left the Brits with a bitter feelings.
I think Romney's comments about respect around the world could be considered an endorsement of Obama given the President's overwhelming international support.
Brits have yellow teeth and worship dead princesses. We shouldn't be overly concerned if their feelings are hurt.
Of course they love Barry.
He'll bring America down to their level.
-Clem
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
Like the man said at the State of the Union...
Obama lies.
-Clem
Nice of Mittens to endorse the Obama foreign policy.
Mittens "me too" Romney
If anyone is paying attention to the lying that our "President" and "Secretary of State" have done regarding the Libya issue, you need to ask yourself what this guy would do to win an election? Obviously that has been his ONE and ONLY goal. Dead Ambassadors or Navy Seals are just an inconvenient political speed bump.
Post a Comment