E
- Status
R
ringil
Guest
So tonight we have exoflare talking about. . . . . . . me? . . .
Again, thanks for the attention but I assure you, It’s not needed.
I
ishii
Guest
Cmatt - I didn’t watch this debate, but if Obama “won” the 2nd debate, then why did Romney continue to rise in the polls after the 2nd debate?Emperor, you don’t know if Fox commentators declare Romney the winner of the debate, then some people believe Romney won the debate? :bigyikes: I’ve come here to read the comments after each debate. And I can assure you they didn’t watch the same debate I did. Obama was the President tonight. Etch a Sketch just sat there agreeing with our Commander in Chief when he wasn’t denying previous positions.
A CBS News poll was just released of more than FOX commentators.
53% Obama won. Only 23% Romney. Obama takes 2 of the 3 debates.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Let the liberals on this forum think Obama won the debate. Then if/when Romney is elected they can cry: "but the focus group on CNN after the debate said Obama won.:crying: "But his debate “wins” have not done anything to lift him in the polls.
From the analysis I heard (and I confirm this from the part of the debate I listened to) - Romney came across as presidential and able to be trusted with foreign affairs. But its not fair to compare Romney - who has a great deal of international business experience, running the Olympics, etc. - with Obama the community organizer in Chicago. Obama is not in the same league as Romney. This comes across in the debates.
Ishii
D
DavidSears
Guest
I’ll tell you what, I live in Rhode Island, where EVERYONE is a Democrat but me. I used to support Rick Perry. I thought he had the best views and ideas, by far. But, he wasn’t a very good public speaker…
C
CrimsonFox
Guest
I don’t particular buy the domestic thing since Romney kleeps saying his position is to cut every domestic program in sight and overspend on military like Bush did. Cut education (despite “liking those teachers”, cut arts, cut healthcare, cut everything and mindlessly increase weaponry and go after yet another country with war. That is NOT being stronger in domestic policy. That is to not HAVE a domestic policy.
not to mention actually attacking half the country as “freeloaders” when everyone is struggling to get by except the millionaires apparently. That annoys me to no end he did that.
C
CaptFun
Guest
All of the polls have Obama losing what he had everywhere. He still holds much of what he had vs. Mc Cain, but by much less. Pennsylvania he won handily by almost 12%. It also went to Kerry in 2004 by 2.4 percent. I’d seen him down to almost that before this poll.
The Democrats went crazy in the state to fight voter ID laws. That was a red flag. ACORN won’t be a factor this time. Nor the newness of the “first black president.”
Obama’s villianization of the coal industry hurt Pennsylvania’s economy. His radical environmentalism too. Pittsburgh was big in steel. Then in paper. The area was still a producer of coal. Then there is oil (Pennzoil ring a bell). Coal mines and steel mills and paper mills were unionized … but union folks who are environmentalized out of jobs kind of want more than just the clean air and water. They tend to feel a little betrayed.
Ryan’s citation of Biden’s “hometown” of Scranton being devastated during the Obama/Biden watch was telling. And as if all this wasn’t enough to make a blue collar Democrat wobble towards change … out of the blue comes the war on the Catholic Church.
The obsession with swing states has taken a new turn. Romney mentioned Michigan and Massachusetts, Rhode Island tonight. Obama’s attack regarding Chinese tires was a play for Ohio as northwest Ohio Akron and Toledo are big American tire centers.
Appleton Wisconsin got a shout out from Romney too.
Obama played defense better this time, but he was on defense. When he went on offense against Romney personally he looked petulant, and annoyed. When referring to the future Obama seemed to make promises as if he were not yet president, but a challenger who needed to wait for power.
Romney undercut many of Obama’s attacks by agreeing with some of Obama’s policies but co-opting them by touting himself as the better candidate to get the results.
I
ishii
Guest
The debates have been crucial this election - and the necessity of being able to think on your feet during the debates, and the revival of the Romney campaign - due to his debate performance… all of that makes me breathe a sigh of relief that Rick Perry did not get the nomination. As solid as he is on the issues, he was inarticulate and probably would have not been able to perform at the level of Mitt Romney did in the crucial debates. Obama would have run circles around Rick Perry.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Finally watching a re-run of the debate. Romney’s comments on Obama’s “apology tour” very effective. Obama - interrupting and playing “small ball” whereas Romney speaking about the big picture. Obama comes across as petty and unpresidential. Romney is successfully making the case for his ability to be the commander in chief. Obama is making his case - and obviously has learned the lesson from the 1st debate. But it doesn’t matter - Obama doesn’t have the momentum anymore. I would call it a draw or slight edge to Obama on points, but Romney achieved his goal. This is the kind of debate where the partisans on both sides say “our guy won, yayyyy.” But in terms of political analysis, I think Romney won - because he had to come across as credible on foreign policy and trustworthy to lead America. Obama needed a knock out or some kind of “Ford moment” ala “there’s no Soviet domination of eastern Europe now and there won’t be under a Ford Administration.” (this was in 1976). But Romney is too smart and disciplined to make a gaffe or mistake like that. In fact, if I take anything away from these three debates it is this: Romney is much smarter than Obama.Looks like Obama ate his Wheaties this morning!
Ishii
C
CaptFun
Guest
“Ugly” can be spirited debate. What is ugly is America’s economy, a headed for more war outlook with outbreaks of revolutions and totalitarian crackdowns, and leadership that cracks down harder on Catholic schools and hospitals than it does openly hostile foreign forces.
Romney hit the President on Iran … but did not mention that four years ago Obama was
pillorying the Republicans as war hawks while declaring he would talk to anyone, including Iran. Talks that have not happened. (Not so UGLY as it could have been)
Romney promised a stronger military and economy. But touted stronger sanctions against Iran. He recounted the numerous revolutions and acts of terror proliferating around the world - and promised leadership and peace through strength.
Both praised Israel. Romney would not have pulled all troops out of Iraq … but said troops ought to be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Romney made a bid to be the unity candidate, again emphasizing he would reach across the aisle for bipartisanship as he did in Massachusetts. He presented his positive record as Massachusetts Governor in the area of Education, student scores, and helping Massachusetts’ achieving students be placed in Massachusetts’ colleges.
Romney recalled his Michigan roots, his fathers’ business experience in running American Motors in Detroit, and said that far from being anti-auto company, he was against the bailout and Government takeover of GM vs. bankruptcy and reorganization of the private companies as the answer to the long term health of the industry in Michigan.
Obama claimed credit for peace in Iraq and killing Osama bin Laden. He characterized his policy as forming alliances and making friends throughout the Middle East and Romney’s as being “all over the map.”
Romney countered by saying we should go after the bad guys, develop gender equality, stability, a consensus among Middle Eastern moderate leaders, and economic stability and trade with the US. He also recounted the present chaos in Libya, Mali, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and imminent danger with Iran and Pakistan.
Obama complained that Romney’s “all over the map” criticisms were not a recipe for the strength needed to execute strong foreign policy.
Romney observed that Obama’s own Secretary of the Navy was panicked over the pending $1 Trillion in cuts which he said would devastate the Navy; and that the Air Force
would be cut to the lowest level since its inception as a separate force in the 1940s.
Romney pledged making the military stronger, while yet cutting non-essential services elsewhere budgetarily. He said that forward plans should be made to prepare for future threats … citing that during the 2000 election neither candidate proposed revamping the military to combat the terrorism that struck New York and Washington in September, 2001.
He proposed meeting with Middle Eastern friendly nations to identify moderate, friendly to America parties in Syria and arming them aiming at “Syria as a friend and a stabilizing power in the area,” adding “…we should be playing a leadership role.”
Obama touted his record in Libya and the disposition of Moammar Khadafy. Claiming his treatment of that involvement prevented riots there. No mention was made of the recent
assassination of the US ambassador and three others, surprisingly.
Romney noted that Obama publicly demanded that Syrian president Assad should step down more than a year ago and that since then 30,000 civilians have been killed.
Romney made no mention of demonstrators throughout North Africa and the Middle East burning Obama in effigy – nor of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton being booed in Egypt with chants of “Monica, Monica …” when she pushed for more “women’s rights” and state sponsored abortions per UN policies.
Obama did claim progress in Yemen (where drone strikes have killed purported Al Quaeda leaders) and Somalia.
Romney advocated promoting Democracy, a free press, equality for women, and trade with the emerging nations. He decried artificially hostile relationships with Israel and Poland and the silence of the Obama administration when Iran appeared have an emerging “Arab Spring” type of movement in protest against Ahmadinejab and the radical Islamic government.
Romney acknowledged the wisdom of sanctions against Iran but complained of their weak application thus far saying he’d:
– tighten the sanctions preventing the export of Iranian oil that fuels their adventurism and hostiliy;
– call for the international indictment of Ahmadinejab for his threats of genocide against Israel,
– treat Iran’s diplomats like pariahs similar to the Apartheid government of South Africa in the 1970s and '80s.
He also decried:
– the weakness of the Obama Administration’s “Apology Tour,”
– the snubbing of Israel,
– China’s theft of American intellectual property and trade inbalance …
– through its manipulative monetary practices,
– and the fact that Iran was “four years nearer” to a nuclear weapon.
Romney also deftly deflected a hypothetical phone call from Israel that their bombers were on the way to attack Iran.
Obama defended the status quo of his foreign policy, claiming that his policies had repaired America’s reputation around the world. He claimed Romney had flip flopped in “now supporting our efforts at diplomatic pressure,” and that his solutions were “all over the map.”
meltzerboy
New member
I support Obama but I don’t think either he or Romney sealed the deal tonight. In fact, I’m really glad this is the last debate as the questions asked as well as the responses of both candidates are becoming repetitive and tedious. It’s too bad we don’t have two better and electable choices, as well as more innovative moderators.
I
ishii
Guest
Agreed. And Obama’s responses to Romney’s points come across as unpresidential, sophomoric, petty and combative. Romney makes substantive points about the challenge we face with China and Obama responds with points about Romney “exporting jobs to China” etc. Obama is not in the same league as Romney. It shows during these debates.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
i think Romney did well tonight considering he is not the incumbent. Romney’s strongest points are economic, but i believe he still did well tonight.
Obama has the advantage of being in office for 4 years and having lots of inside information.
i can’t call tonight who is going to win in November. Obama still has no record to run on as far as how far we have come in 4 years. Obama is good at saying what people want to hear. i haven’t like any of the moderators during these debates.
Obama has the advantage of being in office for 4 years and having lots of inside information.
i can’t call tonight who is going to win in November. Obama still has no record to run on as far as how far we have come in 4 years. Obama is good at saying what people want to hear. i haven’t like any of the moderators during these debates.
meltzerboy
New member
That’s my point: there are none today. Virtually everything in American society, except technology, has declined during the past 40 years, and the quality of Presidential candidates is no exception.
I
ishii
Guest
I agree- Romney did well. He made the case for anyone wondering if he is worthy to be trusted as commander in chief of the military. Obama has simply not made the case that he deserves to be re-elected. Other than authorizing the raid that killed bin Laden, his entire presidency has been a failure. The past two weeks or so - esp. Bengazi issue - has shown that foreign policy is a very weak area for Obama.
Ishii
J
jwinch2
Guest
They weren’t any better then. History treats former politicians far more kindly than they likely deserve and we tend to view the past through rose colored glasses in the best of times, more so when times are tough as they are now. As Harry S. Truman said “a statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years”.
I
ishii
Guest
Okay, give me some examples of past candidates that you think are better. I can see where you’re coming from, but every age has its leaders who come forth - the issues change. Foreign policy and geopolitics changes. I can’t imagine anyone thinking that Truman, e.g would have been ideal in the 80’s, or that Teddy Roosevelt would have been ideal in the 60’s. I think that you may be surprised at Romney’s abilities as president (if he wins) and I suppose we’ll not know unless he gets elected. If you want to talk about decline - then look at the past two presidents: Obama and Bush. I think many would regard Clinton as part of the decline - and he presided over peace and prosperity.
Ishii
meltzerboy
New member
I disagree that Obama’s entire presidency has been a failure. His signing of the Lily Ledbetter Bill for equal pay for women, his repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the crippling sanctions on Iran, the Affordable Care Act of Obamacare that ensures, among other things, coverage for preexisting conditions, the reduction of costs for prescription medication for seniors, the auto bailout, these I view as genuine accomplishments.
meltzerboy
New member
If Romney is elected, I wish him the best for the sake of the country. I consider Clinton an anomaly; he was a great President apart from his moral indiscretions. Past presidents such as FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, NIxon, and Reagan were all better than Carter, the Bushes, and Obama. The candidates who ran against them were also of superior quality, such as Adlai Stevenson, the late George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Barry Goldwater, etc. My opinion.
- Status