View Full Version : Third Presidential Debate, 22 October 2012
Do you see the watch Bob Schieffer is wearing! (Is it too late to change my major?)
Do you see the watch Bob Schieffer is wearing! (Is it too late to change my major?)
I did notice when he said Obama Bin Laden when talking about Pakistan...nice Freudian slip...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/video-debate-moderator-bob-schieffer-refers-to-obama-bin-laden/article/2511478
I did notice when he said [Deleted] Bin Laden when talking about Pakistan...nice Freudian slip...Facebook won't let me make a comment on that slip of the tongue.
As for "fact checking" Mitt Romney on the auto bailout...he was right and the President was incorrect...
"The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0
Just as I thought Romney was incorrect to challenge the President on what he said in the Rose Garden on Libya in the last debate (I thought he should attack in a more general sense, rather than getting mired in semantics), the President made a tactical error in challenging Romney on what he wrote in the op-ed in the New York Times...
As for "fact checking" Mitt Romney on the auto bailout...he was right and the President was incorrect...
"The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0
Just as I thought Romney was incorrect to challenge the President on what he said in the Rose Garden on Libya in the last debate (I thought he should attack in a more general sense, rather than getting mired in semantics), the President made a tactical error in challenging Romney on what he wrote in the op-ed in the New York Times...After the last debate, NBC's Andrea Mitchell agreed that the president was misrepresenting Governor Romney's editorial. She also pointed out that the title of the editorial was selected by the editors of the New York Times.
However, she pointed out that Romney was opposed to the bail out as proposed. He wrote.But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost. MOO, the president could take this risk because he's already laid the groundwork for painting Governor Romney as a plutocrat who does not care for the American working classes.
...MOO, the president could make this risk because he's already laid the groundwork for painting Governor Romney as a plutocrat who does not care for the American working classes.
Unfortunately, I think that the majority of the electorate will not take (or has not taken) the time to read the op-ed for themselves, thus allowing the President and his campaign to shape the narrative on what Romney's position on the bailout was...
Unfortunately, I think that the majority of the electorate will not take (or has not taken) the time to read the op-ed for themselves, thus allowing the President and his campaign to shape the narrative on what Romney's position on the bailout was...I agree.
I think both parties are counting on most voters not going and doing their own research on who said what.
Divemaster
10-22-2012, 20:53
Is it just me, or did Mr. Obama come across as though this was his first run for the White House? Refering to the policies of the past while conveniently skipping the polices in place during 2009 - 2012 seems a bit disingenuous to me. Also, Mr. Romney correctly noted that the President's attacks on him do not equate to a vision for the future.
ZonieDiver
10-22-2012, 20:56
Okay, on to the important issue: the performance of the moderator!
I'm no Bob S. fan. His interview with Marco Rubio on the Sunday morning show was pathetic. However, I think he did an excellent job (except when he was packing up his laptop while Romney still blathered in his closing).
This despite the fact, as I learned today, that Scheiffer's 3rd cousin, twice removed, knew a guy who once talked one of the parking valet's at at 'bat mitzvah' attended by Michelle Obama's aunt's mother's neighbor.
http:/wwww.icantbelieveyoureadthisbs.net
This despite the fact, as I learned today, that Schieffer's 3rd cousin, twice removed, knew a guy who once talked one of the parking valet's at at 'bat mitzvah' attended by Michelle Obama's aunt's mother's neighbor.Did the valet give the guy a receipt? If not, Schieffer was biased.
ZonieDiver
10-22-2012, 21:01
I agree.
I think both parties are counting on most voters not going and doing their own research on who said what.
And I am pretty sure they are both on safe ground in making that assumption, unfortunately.
XngZeRubicon
10-22-2012, 21:06
While I personally would've enjoyed seeing a more aggressive Mitt Romney, Romney did what HE needed to do with that small group of undecideds he was targeting. And what that group did not want to see was a warmonger.
Romney did what HE needed to do with that small group of undecideds he was targeting. And what that group did not want to see was a warmonger.If that is so, what they got was a look inside a mind that doesn't know the difference between a list of talking points and a cohesive grand strategy.
I thought Mitt was spot on.
Obummers team thought he'd come out swinging on Libya...Obummer was prepped to paint him as a righty loon....
All Obama could do was snipe and make himself look small.
He did a great job for this limited mission of swing voters....he really does analyze and focus.
Reminds me of the recruiting effort some years ago when they ran it by us at the FORSCOM Commanders seminar prior to hitting the streets,,,,
It was the "Army of One" by line...they played some commercials and asked us what we thought....
We hated it and had thousands of reasons why....
The Col recruiter said ...excellent....if it appealed to you we would have totally missed our audiance. He was right.
XngZeRubicon
10-22-2012, 21:19
If that is so, what they got was a look inside a mind that doesn't know the difference between a list of talking points and a cohesive grand strategy.
I agree it was a list of talking points - that's all they can do in these silly debates with the time constraints. But the President was much worse at spelling out a cohesive grand strategy. His record is a disaster. In both the economy and foreign policy. The Middle East is on fire. The economy is anemic. That's the record this President can't run from -- no matter how much the press tries to let him. Romney has a lot of money left; the President is out of money and has to borrow $15million. I expect the Romney campaign to fill in the blanks from tonight with final two weeks of ads.
XngZeRubicon
10-22-2012, 21:21
I thought Mitt was spot on.
Obummers team thought he'd come out swinging on Libya...Obummer was prepped to paint him as a righty loon....
All Obama could do was snipe and make himself look small.
He did a great job for this limited mission of swing voters....he really does analyze and focus.
Reminds me of the recruiting effort some years ago when they ran it by us at the FORSCOM Commanders seminar prior to hitting the streets,,,,
It was the "Army of One" by line...they played some commercials and asked us what we thought....
We hated it and had thousands of reasons why....
The Col recruiter said ...excellent....if it appealed to you we would have totally missed our audiance. He was right.
Excellent metaphor me thinks.:D
XngZeRubicon
10-22-2012, 21:24
And was I the only one annoyed by the President's facial expressions? I'm sure he was coached to come across as aggressive, but he looked like he was giving the stink eye all the time.
medic&commo
10-22-2012, 21:32
Romney - mature, steadfast, focused & cool.
vs.
Obama - blaming, egotistical, hot-headed.
MSM says Obama won, but IMO Romney appeared more presidential.
m&c
I agree it was a list of talking points - that's all they can do in these silly debates with the time constraints.A reason is not an excuse.
As a rule of thumb, two minutes of speaking time is approximately 250 typed words, double spaced--enough to fill a page. The amount of money Romney and his supporters have spent on his campaign coupled with the GOP's rich (and controversial) tradition of geostrategic thinking make it, IMO, unimaginable that Romney's prep team couldn't have squared the circle. He spent time rehashing the points that didn't work in the second debate rather than making a cohesive argument.
But the President was much worse at spelling out a cohesive grand strategy. His record is a disaster. In both the economy and foreign policy. The Middle East is on fire. The economy is anemic. That's the record this President can't run from -- no matter how much the press tries to let him. Romney has a lot of money left; the President is out of money and has to borrow $15million. I expect the Romney campaign to fill in the blanks from tonight with final two weeks of ads.From the jump it was clear that the president's objective was not to articulate his grand strategy, but to demonstrate that his opponent doesn't have one.
IRT to the money issue, is that really a point on which to hang one's hat? That the candidate with the most cash is going to be the one that wins?
I watched 'Saving Private Ryan' - good reminder of the responsibility of being elected CinC.
Richard
XngZeRubicon
10-22-2012, 21:54
A reason is not an excuse.
As a rule of thumb, two minutes of speaking time is approximately 250 typed words, double spaced--enough to fill a page. The amount of money Romney and his supporters have spent on his campaign coupled with the GOP's rich (and controversial) tradition of geostrategic thinking make it, IMO, unimaginable that Romney's prep team couldn't have squared the circle. He spent time rehashing the points that didn't work in the second debate rather than making a cohesive argument.
From the jump it was clear that the president's objective was not to articulate his grand strategy, but to demonstrate that his opponent doesn't have one.
IRT to the money issue, is that really a point on which to hang one's hat? That the candidate with the most cash is going to be the one that wins?
It depends on how far you want to drill down. Are you talking strategy at the highest level? He did that every time he spelled out 5 points. I thought you were talking about lower levels of gradation. There's no time to get into all the details of each of those five areas.
Thank you for acknowledging the President could not articulate his grand foreign policy strategy...... because he has none, other than the "kumbaya" offensive. As for the money angle, does that really need to be spelled out to a sophisticated historian as yourself?:D Money translates to message, propoganda, influence, persuasion,...choose any word you want.
I have decided the best candidate is the same one Monty Brewster supported.
Are you talking strategy at the highest level? He did that every time he spelled out 5 points. I thought you were talking about lower levels of gradation. There's no time to get into all the details of each of those five areas.A definition of "grand strategy" is available here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23101).
As for the money angle, does that really need to be spelled out to a sophisticated historian as yourself?:D Money translates to message, propaganda, influence, persuasion,...choose any word you want.FYI, there have been a number of serious conversations on this BB about the direction the government is taking. Rather than attempting--yet again--to appear clever, how about changing your pace and making an effort to be informed?
Or you could stick to talking about "grand foreign policy strategy." What ever works for you.
XngZeRubicon
10-22-2012, 22:43
A definition of "grand strategy" is available here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23101).
FYI, there have been a number of serious conversations on this BB about the direction the government is taking. Rather than attempting--yet again--to appear clever, how about changing your pace and making an effort to be informed?
Or you could stick to talking about "grand foreign policy strategy." What ever works for you.
I perused your link; neat stuff. The problem is that it's too down in the weeds...goes over the heads of most voters, IMHO. Romney made his strategy at the highest level known. He kept saying "peace through strength" over and over. He then gave a short list of points that supported that overall strategy. I don't know how you can expect him to get much more detailed with the short amount of time the moderator gave them.
As for being clever, with all due respect, I think it is you who comes across as clever, but in a bookish way. Instead of just answering my questions directly, you chase me to read something. I've never seen that accepted as a tactic in any debate. You should be able to answer me within a post.
I've spent my entire professional life on the front lines of whatever job it was I was doing. I also have an extensive academic background, just as you do. I draw from both, but when it comes to solving problems, it's my real world experience that serves me the best.
As for not being very informed, give me time and I'll run circles around you on topics of economics, foreign policy, intelligence, business, and those types of discussions. I have trremendous real world and academic credentials in all of them. You can either answer my questions, just as I respectfully answer yours, or you can continue to condescend. Whatever works for you.
Entire post.If, for argument's sake, you are as knowledgeable and as experienced as you claim, then why not put forth your best effort to offer your expertise to the BB?
XngZeRubicon
10-22-2012, 22:59
If, for argument's sake, you are as knowledgeable and as experienced as you claim, then why not put forth your best effort to offer your expertise to the BB?
!) Because I'm sure people don't want to read an entire book when I answer
2) Because I'm sure I don't have time to write the comprehensive answer to "what should our country's entire for. policy strategy be" in one post.
3) It's easier to give the "roll up." Or the BLUF as I learned the Army liked to call it when I was in Iraq.
4) This post is about the debate. I gave my high level impressions about the debate. It would be fun to debate every single point, however, the strategic takeaway for the person I believe will be our next president was to avoid being painted a warmonger. I think all the other points are secondary.
I perused your link; neat stuff. The problem is that it's too down in the weeds...goes over the heads of most voters, IMHO. Romney made his strategy at the highest level known. He kept saying "peace through strength" over and over. He then gave a short list of points that supported that overall strategy. I don't know how you can expect him to get much more detailed with the short amount of time the moderator gave them.
As for being clever, with all due respect, I think it is you who comes across as clever, but in a bookish way. Instead of just answering my questions directly, you chase me to read something. I've never seen that accepted as a tactic in any debate. You should be able to answer me within a post.
I've spent my entire professional life on the front lines of whatever job it was I was doing. I also have an extensive academic background, just as you do. I draw from both, but when it comes to solving problems, it's my real world experience that serves me the best.
As for not being very informed, give me time and I'll run circles around you on topics of economics, foreign policy, intelligence, business, and those types of discussions. I have trremendous real world and academic credentials in all of them. You can either answer my questions, just as I respectfully answer yours, or you can continue to condescend. Whatever works for you.
BLUF v Socratic - interesting - which has claim to having 'stood the test of time'...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
3) It's easier to give the "roll up."How about that.
Here's the thing. There are many members of the peanut gallery who work very hard to write good posts and to contribute meaningfully to the conversations. These efforts include additional reading and research, writing drafts, and, on occasion, collaboration via PM, email, and other channels of communication. While not every post hits it out of the park and not every post is a matter of utmost seriousness, the bottom line is that, differences of opinion aside, many who sit in the back benches understand that respect is earned one post at a time.
You allege that you have the ability, the expertise, and the experience to write good posts. Then why not put forth the effort and go beyond playing the gadfly who mostly visits recent threads and who starts threads before checking to see if the topic has already been discussed? (Is it okay for you that members who have been here for years will triple check before starting a new thread while you've started how many threads on Libya?)
If you're as skilled and as intelligent as you claim then it shouldn't be that difficult to build a body of work that establishes you as the SME in multiple fields that you claim to be.
My $0.02.
I thought he missed a golden opportunity to thwack Obama over the Navy issue thing, where Obama was implying that these are modern times and thus we can get by with a much smaller navy. Romney could have said that while we do not need a Cold War-sized navy, there is no way that anyone can know with any certainty what our future military requirements will be, that we have no idea what the geopolitical situation twenty or thirty years down the line will be, and how we could severely regret having reduced the size of our navy so much, on the thinking that we wouldn't need a larger navy going forward because of the assumption that any conflicts requiring a larger navy are a thing of the past.
I'd have brought up how they initially sent the F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam into combat without machine guns on the same thinking, that modern fighters don't dog fight anymore, only to find out that yes they still were! I'd have also said that yes, the U.S. spends more on defense than the next ten nations combined, but that's because those nations all barely spend anything. None of them have any real power projection capability with the exception of the U.K, and even they lack the navy they had back in the 1980s now.Bluntly, I don't believe that Governor Romney has the depth and breadth of knowledge to make such an argument succinctly. (If he [or his prep team] were conversant with naval affairs, the comparison between today's fleet and that on the eve of World War I would never have been offered.)
I did think Romney had the best closing statement however.IMO, the best thing about Romney's closing statement is that he demonstrated, again, that he truly loves his country and that he respects Americans. I have never gotten anything close to the same read from the president.
Why is the comparison between today's fleet and the one on the eve of WWI bad? Because today's warships and submarines are much more capable across the spectrum of warfare.
The argument Romney needed to make to be credible was one that, among other things, did the following:
sketched out the grand strategy he envisioned for the United States (prioritizing interests, geographic areas of emphasis, and matching means to ends),
defined the basic mission of navy within that framework (e.g. sea control or power projection or what ever), and then
balanced fleet readiness (the ability to go to war tomorrow),
with fleet modernization (the ability to go to war against a "likely enemy" (i.e. the Chinese or the Russians--or both).
But since Romney does not have a grand strategy, he was pretty much reduced to making useless comparisons.
I agree here. Romney doesn't strike me as a man fluent in conservatism (for example, I do not get the vibe that he has read the books of Milton Friedman), but he does strike me as a man who seeks to be a good policymaker....Well, at the risk of bursting your bubble, what follows is part of an email exchange between myself and a friend I've known most of my life. This person--whom I've known since 1978--worked for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when Romney was governor. He is now an associate professor of economics at a small school in Massachusetts. (FWIW, hands down he's the smartest guy I know. I trust his readings on such matters.)
The email, dated, 13 May 2006, read in part.
Romney is definitely running for president. It has been an open secret here for years that he wasn't really interested in being governor. He has already announced that he isn't running for reelection, and he has been spending a lot of time in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina for more than a year.
I originally liked Romney, but the more I saw of him in action the more my views changed. He consistently listened to the political advisors rather than trying to get things done. He was always happy to go for a political victory even if his political efforts doomed his policies to failure. Even on small issues, where the average voter could not care less, he consistently bowed to the political advisors who would talk about getting good press coverage in some newspaper that nobody reads.
When I was working on his education proposal, one of his closest advisors said in a meeting that all Romney wanted was a few bullet points that would make the news and that he could point to when he ran for president. The policy they came up with was 90% crap. My ex boss was a decent guy, but he had to lie to himself that Romney cared about the 10% that was good policy. I knew better.
Romney has no backbone. He consistently spouted views that were clearly designed to get him national exposure (stem cells, gay marriage, taxes, education, etc.). He also cut spending by more for poor towns than for wealthy ones. He also caved in when dealing with the police unions here. He is smart enough to know the right things to do, but not strong enough to stand up and try to get them done.
One of his most surprising weaknesses was how poorly he ran his administration. He brought in all these MBA types, but the office was very poorly managed. They were often completely ineffective, even on policies where they could have gotten things done.
Badger52
10-23-2012, 03:30
I agree.
I think both parties are counting on most voters not going and doing their own research on who said what.Unfortunately I meet people everyday who prove that you'd have a good bet AND be holding the cards to back it up.
That's why commercials and the first page of the hometown paper work for them.
:rolleyes:
Unfortunately I meet people everyday who prove that you'd have a good bet AND be holding the cards to back it up.
That's why commercials and the first page of the hometown paper work for them.
:rolleyes:
If you were king for a day, how would you address this dynamic within the Republican Party?
Would you be willing to pay the price in the short term to establish a reputation for taking the high road four or eight years down the line?
Or would you set up "laboratories" in Republican strongholds to groom politicians who could reach across the aisle without sacrificing on principle?
Or would you change the dynamic among factions within the party by, for example, benching the [fill in group here]?
Or would you try to broaden the party's diversity?
Or would you support campaign finance reform?
(I'm asking these questions because after last night's debate, I've got that sinking feeling I had back in 1996.)
Wow - Sigaba, you nailed it there. A "conversation" with a Massuchusetts "economics" professor that didn't like Romney. The institution wasn't U-Mass- Amherst, was it ?(they used to have an actual Marxian economics department - not sure if they still do).
That's like being the skinniest kid at fat camp. I think they hunted out the last independent, non-partisan individual in Massachusetts back in the '30's.
But you convinced me. I'm going to vote for Obama.
blue02hd
10-23-2012, 09:36
Wow - Sigaba, you nailed it there.
My personal gem from that last exchange was " you earn respect on this board one post at a time".
I've always felt that personal experience, passion, and unfiltered honesty were always overrated metrics to dole out respect by.
I agree with one point though, if you can't articulate your OPINION without referring to a link or an ancient indirect second party unverifiable email then it appears as if you have no opinion at all.
It appears, of course, to be my humble opinion.
I think we're pole-vaulting over mouse-turds. The choice is clear: either go for an anti-colonialist, socialist who really doesn't like his country and has a HUGE racial chip on his shoulder; or go for Romney. Romney may not be your dream date but he's what's at the door. Either take him out and stuff a cheeseburger down his throat in an attempt to get this country back on its feet or re-lect Obama and kiss our Constitutional Republic good-by.
I don't think Sigaba was advocating for BHO or against MR, merely posting informed opinion of someone with experience working for an MR administration and also providing background on the originator of the information to be weighed by readers. MI types are generally glad to have that kind of material when processing information.
Personally, I don't think BHO can bring down the republic or that MR is a Holgerdanske saviour, but as Mr Eastwood so aptly put it, BHO's performance has been such that his employer - we citizens - should fire him and give MR a shot at the job. I agree and I'm sure Sigaba does, too.
Richard :munchin
I don't think Sigaba was advocating for BHO or against MR, merely posting informed opinion of someone with experience working for an MR administration and also providing background on the originator of the information to be weighed by readers. MI types are generally glad to have that kind of material when processing information.
Personally, I don't think BHO can bring down the republic or that MR is a Holgerdanske saviour, but as Mr Eastwood so aptly put it, BHO's performance has been such that his employer - we citizens - should fire him and give MR a shot at the job. I agree and I'm sure Sigaba does, too.
Richard :munchin
+1
Holger Danske - good one!
blue02hd
10-23-2012, 11:26
You had me at Pole vaulting mouse turds,,,,,,
Badger52
10-23-2012, 11:45
especially coconut grenades. :D
If you were king for a day, how would you address this dynamic within the Republican Party?
Would you be willing to pay the price in the short term to establish a reputation for taking the high road four or eight years down the line?
Or would you set up "laboratories" in Republican strongholds to groom politicians who could reach across the aisle without sacrificing on principle?
Or would you change the dynamic among factions within the party by, for example, benching the [fill in group here]?
Or would you try to broaden the party's diversity?
Or would you support campaign finance reform?
(I'm asking these questions because after last night's debate, I've got that sinking feeling I had back in 1996.)Still, I think your questions are worth thinking on and I don't take your previous comments to be hawking for one or the other.
BLUF: I do not know.
The dynamic I spoke of in #34 is not something that I believe any non-caretaker party can address, even in 2 national election cycles. This is a problem of sloth on the part of the consumer, generationally. I personally don't think any combination of lofty measures to alter perception of the party by an electorate will achieve much, near to mid-term.
To really broaden diversity, for example, is going to need a constituency willing to come to you because they have realized that you have something that, long term, is in their best interests. Tough to do when they also are thinking about their near-term satisfaction. The "lofty thinkers" on the left (my perjorative) have alot of rhetoric but are short-term on winning and seem to do a better job of pandering to accomplish that.
Now... The idea of telling a few factions to sit down and STFU and "please, try to be quiet and not help so much" might go a bit toward broadening that diversity, by being less "guilty of exclusivity." I like that one, and have a couple of blasphemic ideas about that. Change the ionization, so to speak, so that the party attracts rather than repels.
Going into Old Yeller mode, I read awhile back in the blogosphere a comment on this whole thing, at this point in our history, characterized as, "You can take the long windy path to the ambush, or you can walk straight down the trail. You have (xx) days to make your decision."
Surf n Turf
10-23-2012, 11:52
Or would you set up "laboratories" in Republican strongholds to groom politicians who could reach across the aisle without sacrificing on principles.
Sigaba,
As the democrats have expunged the “moderate elements” within the party, I believe that it is nearly impossible to “reach across the aisle” without coming away feeling unclean / dirty (think Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Shumer & Maxine Waters)..
That party’s (House & Senate) only interest is promoting Social Justice and wealth redistribution. I’ve lived in to many socialist countries to wish that abomination on America..
SnT
23373
Wow - Sigaba, you nailed it there. A "conversation" with a Massuchusetts "economics" professor that didn't like Romney. The institution wasn't U-Mass- Amherst, was it ?(they used to have an actual Marxian economics department - not sure if they still do).
That's like being the skinniest kid at fat camp. I think they hunted out the last independent, non-partisan individual in Massachusetts back in the '30's.
But you convinced me. I'm going to vote for Obama.
My personal gem from that last exchange was " you earn respect on this board one post at a time".
I've always felt that personal experience, passion, and unfiltered honesty were always overrated metrics to dole out respect by.
I agree with one point though, if you can't articulate your OPINION without referring to a link or an ancient indirect second party unverifiable email then it appears as if you have no opinion at all.
It appears, of course, to be my humble opinion.JimP and blue02hd--
I've been making it clear for four years what I think of the incumbent and that I will not be voting for him. I didn't realize that I need to rehash my personal and intellectual indictment of the man on a regular basis.
I also have been quite clear that I am increasingly unimpressed with the GOP ticket. If one reads the quotation within the context of the present discussion, it is clear that the point is to provide information that will help some manage their expectations of a Romney administration.
I understand that American politics are charged to the point where, in many quarters ideological concerns trump almost every other concern. But maybe it is because I'm an egghead trained to think a certain way or maybe it is because I'm from L.A. and live in an environment where how we feel about a subject doesn't automatically preclude a dispassionate--if not articulate--discussion of that subject's strengths and weaknesses.
In any case, to be quite clear, my opinion based upon my research of the facts is that the GOP is charting a course towards political irrelevance. The habit of some to tune out POVs they don't like is just one of many reasons why this is happening.
...I've been making it clear for four years what I think of the incumbent and that I will not be voting for him. I didn't realize that I need to rehash my personal and intellectual indictment of the man on a regular basis.
I also have been quite clear that I am increasingly unimpressed with the GOP ticket. If one reads the quotation within the context of the present discussion, it is clear that the point is to provide information that will help some manage their expectations of a Romney administration...
I don't think many folks here actually believe Romney is the best candidate to ever grace a ballot. The larger point, however, is that when everyone's lunch choice is either a stale balogna sandwich or moldy cat food, no one is really interested in hearing how the sandwich doesn't measure up to a Porterhouse steak.
And was I the only one annoyed by the President's facial expressions? I'm sure he was coached to come across as aggressive, but he looked like he was giving the stink eye all the time.
No you weren't the only one. I can't stand looking at the guy so it is a chore for me to watch the debates. He also looked smarmy to me.
Oh, and he really should read Horse Soldiers. :p
I don't think many folks here actually believe Romney is the best candidate to ever grace a ballot. The larger point, however, is that when everyone's lunch choice is either a stale balogna sandwich or moldy cat food, no one is really interested in hearing how the sandwich doesn't measure up to a Porterhouse steak.Razor--
IMO, this information is not about comparing Romney to the ideal candidate. Instead, the information allows one to focus attention to the interregnum if Romney wins.
Presidents-elect often reward members of their campaign staff with appointments to the transition team and then to the actual administration. I've provided a bird's eye view of Romney's past habit of surrounding himself with advisors who prioritize politics over sound policy and ideological consistency. In this campaign cycle, Romney's campaign has been inconsistent. In last night's debate, Romney was poorly prepared for his opponent's line of approach. In brief, the people around Romney are enabling him to turn the prospect for victory into a growing probability of defeat.
So this is not about comparing a sucky sammich to the Porterhouse steak. This is about making sure the Imodium is close at hand.
My $0.02.
Peregrino
10-23-2012, 19:54
Sigaba - When there are only two choices, bad and unconscionable, denigrating the bad choice is equivalent to advancing the unconscionable cause. I'm not ecstatic about Romney but the alternative is unspeakable. Time to demonstrate a little pragmatism. Though, given that many of us here have spent our entire adult lives standing shoulder to shoulder with our uniformed brethren holding back the darkness so others could quibble about trivialities; perhaps we have a more jaded perspective. Maybe sniping the only viable hope available for staving off the darkness a little longer just because he isn't perfect is the "principled" position - even if it might detract from his chances to defeat the incumbent. Personally, I think it's well past time to get behind the only alternative we have. YMMV
The Reaper
10-23-2012, 20:07
Sigaba - When there are only two choices, bad and unconscionable, denigrating the bad choice is equivalent to advancing the unconscionable cause. I'm not ecstatic about Romney but the alternative is unspeakable. Time to demonstrate a little pragmatism. Though, given that many of us here have spent our entire adult lives standing shoulder to shoulder with our uniformed brethren holding back the darkness so others could quibble about trivialities; perhaps we have a more jaded perspective. Maybe sniping the only viable hope available for staving off the darkness a little longer just because he isn't perfect is the "principled" position - even if it might detract from his chances to defeat the incumbent. Personally, I think it's well past time to get behind the only alternative we have. YMMV
Well said.
TR
I just finially got to watch the debate.. No AFN and no Youtube ..
IMO Gov Romney did show up in this debate. They say he was trying to keep status quo. Well I'm have to say he did just that. He wasn't reassuring for me. Trying to win over undecided voters. I feel Romney failed on the Military topics, I agree with what as been said here over Romney and the Navy.
Romney has been making a lot of claims, some of them are plausible on the surface. The economy is still in bad shape. Is it possible that Romney really knows how to create jobs, he was or is a businessperson. Well with him looking at 12 Mill new Jobs as he claims although he hasn't told us how? Which effects me due to my wife office closing it's door due to "Retirement". Is it possible Romney has some advanced math unknown to economists that will reduce the deficit while giving out massive tax cuts? I try to balance my check book month, love to learn this new math. I suck at the old ways at times. I guess that being apart of Goverment. Is it possible Romney cares for the middle class? I got what even though what he said to people like him behind closed door is unmistakably not? I fell what Romney siad was what everyone believes, We have all seen the Videos of "people" asking for handouts, "pay for my cable", "pay for my cell phones, I need it". Bro GET A JOB!!
I agree that Romney's probably one of the very few businesspersons who has ever broadened himself enough to be credible as a Presidential contender. Then again, he hasn't really been a businessperson since the mid 1990s. He's been a fulltime politician for the past 15 years, and it seems he has learned the profession well.
I will say this.. Mr. Romney has succeeded in the private and the public sector. Presdent Obama has succeeded in neither. Four years ago Senator Obama didn't know one thing, I wish Gov Romney pointed out how much time Obama had in his back ground. How long where you a Sentor again Mr. President?
So going to the Israeli holocaust museum yad vashem make you knowledgeable, Damn I'm a Genius then with all the museums I've been to. In and outside of the U.S.A. :D
Maybe, maybe, maybe. As a voter, maybe I'm not smart enough to make the right call by myself. We all have to hire experts, who know what we don't, like doctors, dentists, mechanics, former military Generals, etc. to help us. But we are also smart enough to ask for references. So, I look up the folks in MA where Romney was governor and he claims he did a fabulous job. The verdict is most unflattering. The same could be said about Senator Obama. Both sucked at their former jobs. Romney is going to lose MA by a wide margin. The only candidate ever to lose his home state! Can this be for real!!?? This sounds like a snake oil salesman, not a worthly statesman. Presdent Obama throw as much if not more BS lines that no one really knows what is going. Average american's that is, undecided voters mainly.
I feel that most Americans will not go out and vote, just sit at home and hope for their candidate. Then whatever went their way or didn't go their way will drive what they say. I feel Ohio, Navada and Florida will make or break this election. Funny thing is I know of a Ohio Buckeye fan club from Fayetteville that is driving back home to vote in their state election for the Penn state game . I think that is funny.
If this was a final sprint to Election Day I have to say Romney didn't do a good workout plan. Seem like a lot of guys going to SFAS. You think you rucked and ran enough, once there you find out the hard way. Your workout plan SUCKED!!
I'm not ecstatic about Romney but the alternative is unspeakable.
AMEN!!
Sigaba, mi amigo,
Who, in the 2012 Republican primary, would you have preferred?
And second, on you honor as a PS.com member, who did you vote for for President in the 2008 election?
Pat
ZonieDiver
10-23-2012, 21:09
Sigaba - When there are only two choices, bad and unconscionable, denigrating the bad choice is equivalent to advancing the unconscionable cause. I'm not ecstatic about Romney but the alternative is unspeakable. Time to demonstrate a little pragmatism. Though, given that many of us here have spent our entire adult lives standing shoulder to shoulder with our uniformed brethren holding back the darkness so others could quibble about trivialities; perhaps we have a more jaded perspective. Maybe sniping the only viable hope available for staving off the darkness a little longer just because he isn't perfect is the "principled" position - even if it might detract from his chances to defeat the incumbent. Personally, I think it's well past time to get behind the only alternative we have. YMMV
I don't think for a moment that Sigaba is advocating the election of Obama, or denigrating the desire for the election of Romney. I think he harbors, as I do, a fear that the Romney campaign, and the Rs, are going to piss away a 'slam dunk'.
craigepo
10-23-2012, 21:16
I think that we might be trying too hard on this whole debate deal. The debate formats we have had to suffer through are ridiculous if you are really looking for substantial answers to substantial problems. Lincoln-Douglas debates these are not. Does anybody really think a person with an I.Q. Above 70 can properly articulate all of the necessary issues regarding Iran in the allotted 2 minutes? This format forces the candidates to attempt to say something relevant and "not too stupid" in a very short amount of time. The answers are vetted through focus groups and various experts, cleaned up, then re-vetted.
You CAn blame this, in part, on today's micro-targeting of specific people's in swing states. Romney isn't targeting anybody in Texas-he has already won there. Any campaign manager worth a plug nickel is forcing these two to focus solely on Ohio, Iowa, Florida and other swing state voters that will decide this race. Anything else would be malpractice.
Sigaba stated that he didn't think Romney had the depth necessary to discuss certain issues. I am not yet ready to agree with that position. Because of the debate formats, I don't think that we can get a good look into his brain at this point. If we recall, people said the same thing about Reagan. Reagan did ok.
Some friends and I were just lamenting the debate formats. I wonder how guys like Washington, Adams, Madison, or Lincoln would have done when constrained to 2-minute answers on important topics. Andrew Jackson would possibly have. Eaten the crap out of someone. It would be very tough to craft well-considered answers. I doubt that Washington would have given a damn about "body language experts".
That said, I am very proud of this country. The entire world is watching our candidates. They are watching as free people, unafriad to voice their opinion opine during interviews on national tv. Future leaders and. Itizens the world over are seeing democracy and freedom in full action. 300 years ago, no leader in the entire world would have believed this to be possible.
My personal thoughts: the election is essentially done. The independents will break against the incumbent. The president's people aren't as energized as they were 4 years ago. Conservatives will vote in droves. Time will tell
The only "good" thing I could think of if Obama is re-elected is that provided the healthcare program balloons in costs, which it very likely will, then the blame can go solely to the Democrats, as Republicans will have had no part of the bill.
That's part of the problem though, the parties put more emphasis on blaming each other, more time covering their own asses and more time setting each other up for a fall than they spend doing what is best for the country.
the GOP is charting a course towards political irrelevance.
Considering that approval ratings have been in the deep cellar for sometime, and a large percentage of Americans have grown weary of the 24/7/365 campaigning, bickering, lies and half truths....it's likely a problem for both parties and the only question is who will cross the finish line to irrelevance first.
That said, I am very proud of this country. The entire world is watching our candidates. They are watching as free people, unafriad to voice their opinion opine during interviews on national tv. Future leaders and. Itizens the world over are seeing democracy and freedom in full action. 300 years ago, no leader in the entire world would have believed this to be possible.
Yep.
Richard :munchin
That said, I am very proud of this country. The entire world is watching our candidates. They are watching as free people, unafriad to voice their opinion opine during interviews on national tv. Future leaders and. Itizens the world over are seeing democracy and freedom in full action. 300 years ago, no leader in the entire world would have believed this to be possible.
After reading your post, these words from Daniel Webster came to mind:
"We live under the only government that ever existed, which was formed by the deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism."
-Delivered by Daniel Webster in an Anniversary address before the Federal Gentlemen of Concord July 4, 1805 (Reprinted in The Granite Monthly Vol. 5 Oct. 1881
Sigaba, mi amigo,
Who, in the 2012 Republican primary, would you have preferred?But for his failings as a husband, I liked Gingrich.
My hope was that Christie would throw his in the ring. While his candidacy would have been problematic for many, it would have pushed the GOP in a direction I think it needs to take if it is to make it to mid century.
And second, on you honor as a PS.com member, who did you vote for for President in the 2008 election?
PatI voted for Senator McCain.
I don't think for a moment that Sigaba is advocating the election of Obama, or denigrating the desire for the election of Romney. I think he harbors, as I do, a fear that the Romney campaign, and the Rs, are going to piss away a 'slam dunk'.Exactly. IMO, if the GOP is going to take the country in the direction it might go, it needs, among other things, a margin of victory in the presidential election greater than 5% of the popular vote so that can be taken as a mandate for change. (Since 2000, the Democrats have been pointing to the popular vote as a more relevant measure of what the American people want. While this argument is specious, a significant margin of victory might silence rank and file Democrats who would otherwise grouse "We was robbed.":rolleyes:)
Badger52
10-24-2012, 06:38
While this argument is specious, a significant margin of victory might silence rank and file Democrats who would otherwise grouse "We was robbed.":rolleyes:)I believe the lawsuits are already in draft. One for voter ID-related disenfranchisement, one for disenfranchisement due to mishandling of absentee ballots/registration. Either side has the potential to claim larceny. Just my opinion.
I will not vote for the unconscionable as depicted above. I will also do my part to obstruct another spendthrift moving from her current House office to the Senate building. Control of the Senate is a not insignificant factor, either way.
Tick-tock.
That's part of the problem though, the parties put more emphasis on blaming each other, more time covering their own asses and more time setting each other up for a fall than they spend doing what is best for the country.
And such is politics - a game of in and out where those who are in will say and do most anything to stay in, and those who are out will say and do most anything to get in. Success in such a system favors those who best manage to grow their party's power while appearing to follow the accepted rules of their society, reward their cronies and supporters without appearing to break the accepted rules, and are perceived by the electorate at large as being competent and concerned for their general well being.
Tough task for anyone in today's "fishbowl" gotcha climate and "But you said/did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" multimedia "snarktank".
Personally, I've found that I'm nowadays most comfortable with it all in a state of being somewhere between cautiously optimistic perception and mild inebriation.
And so it goes...
Richard. :munchin
Personally, I've found that I'm nowadays most comfortable with it all in a state of being somewhere between cautiously optimistic perception and mild inebriation.
And so it goes...
Richard. :munchin
That's the state of mind Obama voters posessed last election.
Ok Jumping back to teh second debate since everyone thought Romney would jump on the whole Benghazi Attack topic.
I just got wanted to post this.. but have to love the way Chris Matthews Slaming a Romney Supporter Over the teens answer to the Benghazi Attacks reason. You got to move it to 2:28. Most people inline are lost in their Comments. This is how the Obama Campain team is looking at it and why Romney in second and Third Debate IMO missed the boat. I know most TV Shows would have said Romney was beating a dead horse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsYSX3kn2TU
You LIBs can't have both ways as you so think. Video was the reason or it was a Terror attack on US Soil in Benghazi.
ZonieDiver
10-24-2012, 13:16
The only candidate ever to lose his home state!
But that it were so. Oftentimes, candidates are seen as "favorite sons" of either their 'birth state' or 'state of residence'. Romney was born in Michigan, I think - but will probably lose there, too. However, there is a long list of losing candidates who did not win either their birth state, resident state, or both, the most recent of whom is Al Gore - who lost Tennessee (The state he was born in, served as a US Senator, and in which his father was a 'demi-god'!). Incidentally, had he won his home state, he'd have been elected President - not withstanding the mess in Florida.
There is a not-so-long list of winning candidates who lost one or both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major-party_United_States_presidential_candidates_who_lo st_their_home_state
(I know it's Wikipedia, but the information is better organized at this site than some others.)
Dozer523
10-24-2012, 13:45
I don't think many folks here actually believe Romney is the best candidate to ever grace a ballot. The larger point, however, is that when everyone's lunch choice is either a stale balogna sandwich or moldy cat food, no one is really interested in hearing how the sandwich doesn't measure up to a Porterhouse steak. WTF!!??? Two weeks til election and turns out my dear Republican Conservative friends are offering me (us) a menu choice that is "a stale balogna sandwich or moldy cat food"?
First off I'm not sure what's been on the plate for the past three and a half years ACTUALLY is cat food.
But I expected more after four and a half years of listening to my R/C Friends complaining about the entre' and ignoring the sage advice of Dr Seuss in Green Eggs and Ham. Now you tell me the best you can come up with is a stale bologna san-which.
Maybe, you could have used your time more wisely. Like gone to culinary school and learned to f-ing COOK!
And since I'm not a Republican if you want me to change my order you're gonna have to offer me a Porterhouse. Cuz I don't buy the cat food link. BHO maybe he's a cube steak and a little on the improperly cooked side. Some bites are too rare and others overdone. (Pink Slime, maybe. But Pink Slime is FDA approved)
Seriously, this goes to the point my Republican buddy Sig has been drumming. With the Presidential election it isn't enough to say I don't like the guy and that makes him bad and that's why we/you should pick this other guy. Gimme some THING.
Sigaba - When there are only two choices, bad and unconscionable, denigrating the bad choice is equivalent to advancing the unconscionable cause. I'm not ecstatic about Romney but the alternative is unspeakable. Time to demonstrate a little pragmatism.
Sorry the time for pragmatism was the four and a half years the R/C been focusing on birth certificates, who does or does not shake who's hand, bowing, who doesn't salute during Hail To The Chief, and wedding rings. Amount other things.
Seriously, this goes to the point my Republican buddy Sig has been drumming. With the Presidential election it isn't enough to say I don't like the guy and that makes him bad and that's why we/you should pick this other guy. Gimme some THING.
Are you serious? Obama's "leadership" has driven the Country into the dirt. Want four more years of that "thing"?
BTW, Sig's a Republican?!?!
ZonieDiver
10-24-2012, 13:55
Gimme some THING.
You asked for it, you got it!
Throughout the 'debates', I was wishing he (or someone like him) had been present, but 'they' kept out the 3rd party people.
Dozer523
10-24-2012, 14:52
Are you serious? Obama's "leadership" has driven the Country into the dirt. Want four more years of that "thing"?
BTW, Sig's a Republican?!?!Like a heart attack.
I think I heard somewhere that things weren't all that great when Pink Slime took over and it was Bush's fault too.
No, not that thing.
I want a new thing but I might stay with the old thing unless I'm convinced the new thing isn't a stale baloney sandwich. I'm so confused. Huey Lewis help me out here.
Did auto-correct do me wrong? It looks like the same spelling as yours less the emphasis on pub.
Don't worry, one of these days well meet up at the Lake and well get plastered. And sing songs. And pick up chicks.
I'm just gonna go back to watching this thread.
I voted for Senator McCain.
Just checking. ;) :D
Pat
That's the state of mind Obama voters posessed last election.
More like McPalin voters - lotta difference between cautious optimism and wild enthusiasm! ;)
And so it goes...
Richard
More like McPalin voters - lotta difference between cautious optimism and wild enthusiasm! ;)
And so it goes...
Richard
From your post, I can extrapolate that you didn't vote for McPalin.
From that, I can extrapolate who you'll vote for, this time.
You highbrows kill me. :D
From your post, I can extrapolate that you didn't vote for McPalin.
From that, I can extrapolate who you'll vote for, this time.
You highbrows kill me. :D
I hope you're OK - do I need to dial 1-1* for you? I suggest you adjust the headspace and timing on your extraplation mechanism before using it again - it's so far out of whack I fear next time you use it you'll shoot yourself through your other foot and lose your last impacted wisdom tooth.
Bad doe season?
Richard :munchin
* Arkansas law won't allow emergency numbers to exceed two digits - the average number of teeth of those of voting age there.
I hope you're OK - do I need to dial 1-1* for you? I suggest you adjust the headspace and timing on your extraplation mechanism before using it again - it's so far out of whack I fear next time you use it you'll shoot yourself through your other foot and lose your last impacted wisdom tooth.
Bad doe season?
Richard :munchin
* Arkansas law won't allow emergency numbers to exceed two digits - the average number of teeth of those of voting age there.
:D At least you didn't bring up football.
XngZeRubicon
10-28-2012, 18:33
How about that.
If you're as skilled and as intelligent as you claim then it shouldn't be that difficult to build a body of work that establishes you as the SME in multiple fields that you claim to be.
My $0.02.
Umm, I could care less what people think, Sigaba. I’m not here to be liked nor am I running for Ms. Popularity. I’m a problem solver. Our country’s in dire straits right now with a President that could barely run a lemonade stand, let alone a country – our country, and a press that’s so corrupt, most of them should be thrown to a den of lions. I’m merely acting as a concerned citizen who wants to throw the BS flag when appropriate since the press refuses to be the check on government our Founding Fathers envisioned it had to be for their experiment to work.
I’m not here to build a body of work as a SME. I’m here to participate in some serious conversations about our country in general, and especially those about the most important election of my lifetime. Like most people here, I’ve had experiences that color my thinking, and my comments will reflect those.
So back to the topic, as I was implying, the debate was not a meaningful discussion of foreign policy IMO. It was theatrics on the part of both candidates. Mitt Romney’s goal was not to explain foreign policy in any depth to you or me, but to sway that remaining group of undecideds by looking presidential, by looking knowledgeable in general, and by convincing those decideds he wasn’t eager to take us to war.
And that tactic worked with great effect. Here in VA he now has a double digit lead among independents and has closed what used to be a double digit gap with women.
I’d say he did exactly what he set out to do during the third debate.
And finally, if you could see my droppings around the internet, you’d see many of my posts can be long, philosophical, and windy. When the time is right, you’ll see me do that. But that isn’t the only way to communicate. Communication doesn’t have to be long to be meaningful. You and I have obviously worked for different types of people throughout our professional lives. Whether in the mililtary, government, or private sector, my bosses always wanted me to get to the point first, and if they wanted more details, those came later depending on available time. So again, spare me the condescension about gadflies.
XngZeRubicon
10-28-2012, 18:42
BLUF v Socratic - interesting - which has claim to having 'stood the test of time'...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Even the most notable users of the Socratic method - lawyers - have opening statements and closing statements. Within those statements, they typically have a bottom line. ;) And they had to go through a lot of analysis to get to those bottom lines.
smarmy
That's the word I was looking for! Smarmy, not stink-eye, LOL. Thanks, Gyspy.