posted
Well, the headlines for debate #2 were pre-written the day before the debate happened. What do you all think about this one? Are they pre-written once again for a pro-Obama spin?
And what about the alleged "moderator"? Is the fix in on Bob Schaeffer? I believe that Team Obama had a pow-wow with that horrible moderator in debate #2 (Candy Crowley), because she just happened to have the transcript available when the topic came up of Libya. And she claimed that nobody knew the questions in advance, however, there is a great article out there that is a total conspiracy theory, however, the points made are extremely interesting. There are clear signs that Obama knew everything in advance. In one specific instance, Crowley said, "We now go to Joe Blow (I forget his name) for our next question", and Obama walks over to Joe Blow, stands in front of him, looks at him, and says, "Hi Joe". Right after that, Obama realizes he made a mistake----because nobody knows who Joe Blow is yet!! So if nobody knows who Joe Blow is, then how did Obama know to walk over to him and say hello? It's VERY subtle when you watch the tape of that portion of the debate. As soon as Obama realizes that he messed up, he steps back and looks around as if to say, "Okay, where do I go next?"----so play down the fact that he just walked directly over to the guy with the next question.
I KNOW that the mainstream media lie and cheat for Obama. There are plenty of examples, and besides, they are the group who got him elected. Whoever thought that a complete nobody, empty suit with ZERO qualifications would win the Dem nomination over Hillary? Even the Clinton's didn't see that one coming, and that says a lot. They eat, breathe, and live politics 24/7.
Anyway, Romney has the capability to make this a knockout tonight. His knowledge of world affairs is far superior to that of Obama. But.....will Romney do what is necessary? Or will he pull a McCain and be "polite"? Romney has a golden opportunity tonight to put Obama's ignorance on full display. I hope it happens.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney clearly has momentum in his favor at this time, and tonight's debate (which will have them sitting at a table with less chance to get in one another's face, i.e. no Jerry Springer Show) will, as Mr. Smith notes, show to what extent Romney does have command of the facts and issues relating to foreign policy.
For myself, I'll be watching on C-SPAN, but there is another draw out there tonight - Monday Night Football and NLCS coupled with the indifference of many a voter of foreign affairs.
Whoever wins or loses, I will still await to review the reasoning The Times will use this coming Sunday when they come out for Obama - and of course The Journal whenever they come out for Romney.
Regarding Hillary, if Romney wins, she's had it so far as a run goes - unless we are starting to elect presidents on four year cycles rather than the prevalent eight. If Obama wins, she could be in it for '16.
Now there is one regular Democrat who you can be sure wants Romney to win - and that is Rob Blagojevich. I'm sure he has visions of an Obama pardon "on the way out".
Smitty, I remain undecided - and independent.
Posts: 9981 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And of course that is your right. It's just that I don't understand it. If Romney does horribly in tonight's debate, that won't change my vote. To me, it's crystal clear who is the better candidate.
I've got my popcorn ready to put in the microwave. LOVE these debate nights!!
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a good start to the debate. 15 minutes into it and Romney is WAY too passive. Good grief...come on Mitt---give it to him!!!
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syria is Iran's gateway to the sea? I hope Mitt looks at a map if he tries a naval blockade.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foreign affairs is the area of the presidency on which no one runs for the office (don't they all campaign to the effect of "I will be a domestic president'), yet once they are in office, foreign affairs shapes their presidency. The most recent case in point was of course Reagan, who campaigned on domestic issues, but yet defeated the Soviet Union - even if they actually surrendered to his successor.
In short, foreign affairs is an "OJT" (on-the -job training) experience for any president. An incumbent president, even a Jimmy Carter, will have a decided advantage over the challenger. While the other major party candidate does receive some "briefing documents" from both State and Defense, it is still like "Discovery" in a court of law. The side preparing the documents for the other has far more knowledge and insight into what comprises those documents then the side to which they are simply handed without much in the way of comment.
The Constitution of course enables a president to be a virtual dictator in the conduct of foreign affairs; the only "check" out there is the "advise and consent" provisions of one body (Senate) regarding agreements amongst sovereign states - otherwise known as treaties. Naturally, with domestic affairs, a president quickly learns the "Mick Jagger facts of life', but in the area of foreign affairs, he fast learns "he's the boss". Where else would one expect a president eager to cut an image of "strong decisive leadership" turn to?
So in short, if Obama showed more command of facts snd issues last night than did Romney (I think he did), a voter should have been looking to see if "the other guy" could look "presidential" on the world stage. On that point, Gov. Romney made a strong showing, as of course did President Obama.
Posts: 9981 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, what a night.....I was yelling at my TV at certain moments during the debate. Romney seemed "off", like he was either ill, very tired, or didn't want to be there. I couldn't figure out what was going on.
But even with his not-so-great performance, I feel that he won the debate for two reasons: 1) He did exactly what he had to do, which was to remain calm, professional, and presidential (unlike Obama, who was very petty with his snarky comments), and 2) He did not say anything controversial or make any huge boo-boo that could be a game changer. From this point forward, unless something major happens (and I believe it is still quite possible), Romney has a positive momentum going on and he will win the presidency in a landslide. I know there are people who will think I'm crazy for saying that, but all I can say is "trust me". I have been following this stuff so closely for the last year that at this point, there is no other option than for Romney to win. People are sick of Obama, and they finally see him for who he is: an inexperienced, aloof, ignorant, arrogant, narcissistic, elitist, Marxist guy has been "fundamentally transforming" this country into the ground. And now there are stories coming out about Obama's "big" accomplishment (killing Bin Laden) that say he was not even in on the decision and didn't know about it until it was well under way. Of course, they had to pull him in from the golf course to let him know what was going on.
So, while Romney did not excel in last night's debate, he did enough to keep things going the way they are, and that's all he needed to do. I can't wait until we have a "President Elect Romney". Private business will FINALLY be able to spend money, knowing that DC isn't going to tax and burden them to death. The economy will almost instantly turn around, home prices will rise, and we will finally get things back on track again. I can't wait!
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure gotta say The Markets don't look too happy about the uncertainty of who's going to win.
Who knows; I may have to look again at the Reaganesque question "are you better off today than you were four years ago?". As of Sep 30, my personal answer was "Yes", but after the several rather precipitous slides during the past seven days, that may be subject to a "reassessment".
Posts: 9981 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike: I'm positive that the polls have been wrong (purposely) all along. Those numbers reflect exactly what I have been thinking is the case. There is no way there are enough dumb people this time around to vote for Obama again. There is SO MUCH evidence against him---the list is endless.
Did you notice how Obama didn't like being challenged on his "Apology Tour" comment by Romney last night? He didn't like it because he knows that's exactly what he did. I heard audio clips played today of Obama's speeches in 2009 from Cairo and Mexico. WOW, I had forgotten how awful they truly were. For a president to say those things on foreign soil is absolutely disgraceful.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foreign Affairs: If I had not already, I would have lost it completely when I watched Obama bow to the Emperor of Japan. There is a bow of greeting and a bow of submission. He gave the one of submission. Compare it to the bows you see in the pictures of the the surrender of Japan on the battleship Missouri.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Foreign Affairs: If I had not already, I would have lost it completely when I watched Obama bow to the Emperor of Japan. There is a bow of greeting and a bow of submission. He gave the one of submission. Compare it to the bows you see in the pictures of the the surrender of Japan on the battleship Missouri.
Wasn't that due to his "on the job training"?
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jerome, if you had seen 2016 the movie, you would know why obama was bowing to so many foreign leaders.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: Did YOU watch Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911"?
Michael Moore anything is something I would watch only if tied to a chair with my eyes glued open. Can't stand the guy, and that went back to before I read Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man. Read it for yourself and see what you think.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have watched all of Michael Moore's movies. I make it a point to always read, watch, and pay attention to "the other side" so that I can be as informed as possible. Moore is a liar---a proven liar. His films are grossly irresponsible.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: Did YOU watch Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911"?
Michael Moore anything is something I would watch only if tied to a chair with my eyes glued open. Can't stand the guy, and that went back to before I read Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man. Read it for yourself and see what you think.
I'd only read it if tied to a chair with my eyes glued open! Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
