Obama vs. Romney: ROUND III

[PapaG]

Embarrassing that we had more bayonets for the military sevices in 1916 than we do today.

Embarrassing that Romney had the exact number of ships that the Navy claims they need, and instead of acknowledging that fact, the CIC instead went for points with the fart and giggle crowd. It worked for that crowd, but then again, he already had their vote.

LANDSLIDE

 

[The_Lillard_King]

How are we to believe anything either one says:



ROMNEY: "Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq. And by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations, and on Arabic TV, you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations."

OBAMA: "Nothing Gov. Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign. And every fact checker and every reporter who's looked at it, governor, has said this is not true."

THE FACTS: Romney has indeed repeatedly and wrongly accused the president of traveling the world early in his presidency and apologizing for U.S. behavior. Obama didn't say "sorry" in those travels. But in this debate, Romney at last explained the context of his accusation: not that Obama apologized literally, but that he had been too deferential in his visits to Europe, Latin America and the Muslim world.

Obama said while abroad that the U.S. acted "contrary to our traditions and ideals" in its treatment of terrorist suspects, that "America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy," that the U.S. "certainly shares blame" for international economic turmoil and has sometimes "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even divisive" toward Europe. Yet he also praised America and its ideals.

___

OBAMA: "What I think the American people recognize is, after a decade of war, it's time to do some nation-building here at home. And what we can now do is free up some resources to, for example, put Americans back to work, especially our veterans, rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our schools."

THE FACTS: If Romney's "apology tour" was a campaign whopper, so has been Obama's repeated claim that ending expensive wars meant the U.S. now has money to spend at home. There is no such peace dividend because the wars were financed largely by borrowing.

Yet Obama, too, watched his words a little more carefully Monday night, with his milder suggestion that "some resources" are freed up. That's a more plausible point, if only because U.S. "resources" include the ability to continue to go deeper in debt, but for the purpose of fixing roads, bridges and the like, instead of for making war.

___

ROMNEY: "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea."

THE FACTS: Iran has a large southern coastline with access to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. And it has no land border with Syria.

___

ROMNEY: Said that when he was Massachusetts governor, high-school students who graduated in the top quarter "got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning."

OBAMA: "That happened before you came into office."

ROMNEY: "That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong."

THE FACTS: Romney was right. The John and Abigail Adams scholarship program began in 2004 when he was governor.___

 

[maxiep]

I was the only one surprised by the tone of each candidate? Romney acted like the front-runner protecting a lead, which I would have chalked up to bad information on his side or a tactical mistake. However, President Obama acted like a challenger, who had ground to make up in the race. To me, that says the internals of both parties are saying the same thing.

Chuck Todd touched on it on Twitter: “POTUS is consistently trying to draw Romney into a more contentious debate. It's what challengers do who think they are behind”

This morning, Rasmussen had the race spreading one point in either direction. Previously it had been 49/47 Romney over President Obama. Today it's 50/46. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

 

[PapaG]

I was the only one surprised by the tone of each candidate? Romney acted like the front-runner protecting a lead, which I would have chalked up to bad information on his side or a tactical mistake. However, President Obama acted like a challenger, who had ground to make up in the race. To me, that says the internals of both parties are saying the same thing.

Chuck Todd touched on it on Twitter: “POTUS is consistently trying to draw Romney into a more contentious debate. It's what challengers do who think they are behind”

This morning, Rasmussen had the race spreading one point in either direction. Previously it had been 49/47 Romney over President Obama. Today it's 50/46. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

http://sportstwo.com/threads/221723...the-Election?p=2876217&viewfull=1#post2876217

 

[Denny Crane]

This debate was stunning to me. The internals for each campaign must be much worse for Obama and much better for Romney than we have been told generally. If Obama were leading, he would have been the one who was calm and reasoned and Romney would have been the one attacking. Instead it was the other way around. Romney pulled punch after punch while Obama sought conflict.

Romney showed he knew the issues and tried to make people comfortable with him as CIC. President Obama did a good job defending his policies, but he focused on the small issues and overdid the snark, which diminished him a bit. Overall, I'll give Obama the battle and Gov. Romney the win of the three debates.

This is pretty astute. However, the publicly available polling data has to scare the Obama team these days.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

Obama has fallen to +1.9 in Ohio, down from +2.5 just two days ago and +2.1 yesterday.

In the polls taken in the past 7 days, Obama was +3 in Fox News Poll and +5 in CBS News Poll, but +1 or tied in 4 others.


Ohio is Obama's actual hope of preventing Romney from taking the electoral college.

Also interesting is Obama is spending time in Florida today. Romney's RCP average there has slipped to +1.8 there.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I was the only one surprised by the tone of each candidate? Romney acted like the front-runner protecting a lead, which I would have chalked up to bad information on his side or a tactical mistake. However, President Obama acted like a challenger, who had ground to make up in the race. To me, that says the internals of both parties are saying the same thing.

Chuck Todd touched on it on Twitter: “POTUS is consistently trying to draw Romney into a more contentious debate. It's what challengers do who think they are behind”

This morning, Rasmussen had the race spreading one point in either direction. Previously it had been 49/47 Romney over President Obama. Today it's 50/46. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

After the first debate, Obama could not have afforded to be passive in the next two debates. I think even if Obama camp thought they had the lead, they know how quickly that can go if Obama comes out flat and doesn't appear to wnat his job.

I also think Romney played it smart because foreign policy just isn't his strength. He needed to come out cool and collected, not get too invovled in specifics about other countries and keep tying the topics back to the economy saying we will be stronger in foreign affairs if our country is economically sound. Romney being aggressive in this area could have casued major damage, IMO.

But your are right in Romeny is at the stage where he doesn't have a nothing to lose attack president mode and Obama is fighting hard for re-election. And you could be right that internally in both parties, there is a feeling Romney is on his way to steal this election.

 

[maxiep]

This is pretty astute. However, the publicly available polling data has to scare the Obama team these days.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

Obama has fallen to +1.9 in Ohio, down from +2.5 just two days ago and +2.1 yesterday.

In the polls taken in the past 7 days, Obama was +3 in Fox News Poll and +5 in CBS News Poll, but +1 or tied in 4 others.


Ohio is Obama's actual hope of preventing Romney from taking the electoral college.

Also interesting is Obama is spending time in Florida today. Romney's RCP average there has slipped to +1.8 there.

It looks like that Mason/Dixon outlier poll (Romney +7) was washed out of the averages.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html#polls

 

[maxiep]

As an aside, good for the GOP for not stooping to this kind of crap: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...aine-college-trump-charges-republicans-reject

 

[PapaG]

Aren't submarines and aircraft carriers considered part of the naval fleet of ships?

 

[maxiep]

A couple of other thoughts about the behavior of the President in the last debate. Could it be that he thinks the middle is gone, so he's trying to motivate his base? It seemed there was a lot of red meat for those on the Left. He may think it's going to have to be a base election, a la 2004.

Secondly, I've always thought of him as disciplined, but could it be that he has such disdain for Romney personally that he can't help but be snarky? If so, that's a fatal weakness.

 

[TehChad]

What did President Obama need to do, in your opinion?

In a nutshell: Be the President Obama from debate #2 and not #1.

 

[MARIS61]

As for "nanny states", I don't quite know what you mean. Which countries qualify for your definition? Kosovo/the Balkans? Germany and Japan? Iraq and Afghanistan? Vietnam?

Any country we encourage to rely on the US for financial aid.

If you think that Poles in 1946 "chose their own government", or that the Chinese in 1920 "chose their own government", or that the Afghans in 1996 "chose their own government", then I really don't know what to say.

You're speechless then.

 

[mook]

fwiw: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57537795/poll-decisive-win-for-obama-in-final-debate/

President Obama scored a clear two-to-one victory against Mitt Romney during the final presidential debate Monday night, according to a CBS News instant poll of uncommitted voters.

Immediately after it wrapped, 53 percent of the more than 500 voters polled gave the foreign policy-themed debate to Mr. Obama; 23 percent said Romney won, and 24 percent felt the debate was a tie. Uncommitted voters in similar polls gave the first debate to Romney by a large margin, but said Mr. Obama edged the GOP nominee in the second debate.

Both candidates enjoyed a bump regarding whom the voters trust to handle international crisis. Before the debate, 46 percent said they would trust Romney, and 58 percent said they would trust the president. Those numbers spiked to 49 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

Overwhelmingly, the same group of voters said President Obama would do a better job than Romney on terrorism and national security, 64 percent to 36 percent. But they were evenly split, 50-50, on which candidate would better handle China.

The "uncommitted voters" polled are voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who say they could still change their minds.

Also video: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57537795/poll-decisive-win-for-obama-in-final-debate/

 

[MARIS61]

This is good--repped for sharing. I may have to watch this. Perhaps this deserves its own thread.

It has one already:

http://sportstwo.com/threads/222943-THIRD-PARTY(S)-2012-PRESIDENTIAL-DEBATE-OCT.-23

 

[mobes23]

I just found it funny that the CIC didn't know that the Marines still use, and still train with, bayonets. Obama's snarky condescension only proved how little he knows about the military he supposedly leads.

I don't think he said that we don't use them today. He said that we have fewer bayonets now.

 

[Further]

Aren't submarines and aircraft carriers considered part of the naval fleet of ships?

i dont know about aircraft carriers but submarines are not included in the number of ships. In fact, the number of subs are kept secret.

 

[mook]

I watched most of the debate and then got bored.

Seemed like Obama was looking to try to embarrass Romney at every step with his experience. Obama gambled that an aggressive tone (and being able to say he won 2 out of 3 debates) would seal the deal. It didn't, obviously, because most Americans right now just don't care that much about Syria or Libya or Israel or anything beyond their next paycheck, health care bill and/or mortgage.

Romney, by contrast, seemed to realize this debate could really only hurt him. Nobody is going to vote for Romney because of foreign policy. Undecideds just want to know he passes "The Button" test, meaning he won't nuke the planet on a whim. And I think he more than passed that test. It was a pass/fail test for him, and he passed it by playing it cautious and implying he'd pretty much do what Obama has been doing, only with more boats.

So the debates are over, and I stand corrected. I thought they'd be an utter waste, and really two of them (#1 and #2) were quite good in helping me understand the candidates better. #3 I thought was interesting in helping me put our role in the world more in context, so even that one had some merit.

These were by far the best presidential debates I can remember going back to at least Clinton. It terms of entertainment/drama and information/education about the candidates.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I watched most of the debate and then got bored.

Seemed like Obama was looking to try to embarrass Romney at every step with his experience. Obama gambled that an aggressive tone (and being able to say he won 2 out of 3 debates) would seal the deal. It didn't, obviously, because most Americans right now just don't care that much about Syria or Libya or Israel or anything beyond their next paycheck, health care bill and/or mortgage.

Romney, by contrast, seemed to realize this debate could really only hurt him. Nobody is going to vote for Romney because of foreign policy. Undecideds just want to know he passes "The Button" test, meaning he won't nuke the planet on a whim. And I think he more than passed that test. It was a pass/fail test for him, and he passed it by playing it cautious and implying he'd pretty much do what Obama has been doing, only with more boats.
So the debates are over, and I stand corrected. I thought they'd be an utter waste, and really two of them (#1 and #2) were quite good in helping me understand the candidates better. #3 I thought was interesting in helping me put our role in the world more in context, so even that one had some merit.

These were by far the best presidential debates I can remember going back to at least Clinton. It terms of entertainment/drama and information/education about the candidates.

Great line.

So . . . who are you voting for?

 

[mook]

lol. I'm a pretty liberal Democrat, so my choice is obvious.

But having seen Romney pass through these debates, I gotta admit he's alright. I disagree with some of his policies and I think it's hilarious how he gets away with changing his mind on practically everything, but I respect his intellect. Being President is a lot about improvising, and everything about him is improvisational. I've given up hope on his policy prescriptions because he'll just change them anyway. Sandra Day O'Conner was picked by Reagan, remember--not everybody turns out like you think they will.

But the Republicans stepped up their game in my view over their recent candidates.

I lost all respect for McCain when he chose Palin.

I lost all respect for Dubya pretty much from the get-go. I thought he was a nincompoop, and his handling of Iraq and so much else pretty much bore that out.

But these debates have led me to believe I can disagree with Romney yet still respect him. He's plastic and awkward, but in a Ned Flanders kind of way that has an underlying layer of competence about it. I could live with him in the same way I could've lived with Gore or Kerry.

I'd prefer Obama. But if he loses, I'm glad for our country that he's not losing to a buffoon or somebody who picked a buffoon for his vice president.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Any country we encourage to rely on the US for financial aid.
You're speechless then.

I suggest we table this discussion until one of two things happen: One of us changes worldviews vis-a-vis mass murder and "Might makes right" (which hasn't been in vogue since before the Magna Carta) and dictatorship, or you read up on the examples I brought up.

 

[Denny Crane]

I suggest we table this discussion until one of two things happen: One of us changes worldviews vis-a-vis mass murder and "Might makes right" (which hasn't been in vogue since before the Magna Carta) and dictatorship, or you read up on the examples I brought up.

To be fair, MARIS suggests that it is the people (in your examples) who should have defended their own rights and sovereignty vs a 3rd party nation stepping in.

 

[mobes23]

lol. I'm a pretty liberal Democrat, so my choice is obvious.

But having seen Romney pass through these debates, I gotta admit he's alright. I disagree with some of his policies and I think it's hilarious how he gets away with changing his mind on practically everything, but I respect his intellect. Being President is a lot about improvising, and everything about him is improvisational. I've given up hope on his policy prescriptions because he'll just change them anyway. Sandra Day O'Conner was picked by Reagan, remember--not everybody turns out like you think they will.

But the Republicans stepped up their game in my view over their recent candidates.

I lost all respect for McCain when he chose Palin.

I lost all respect for Dubya pretty much from the get-go. I thought he was a nincompoop, and his handling of Iraq and so much else pretty much bore that out.

But these debates have led me to believe I can disagree with Romney yet still respect him. He's plastic and awkward, but in a Ned Flanders kind of way that has an underlying layer of competence about it. I could live with him in the same way I could've lived with Gore or Kerry.

I'd prefer Obama. But if he loses, I'm glad for our country that he's not losing to a buffoon or somebody who picked a buffoon for his vice president.

Mook, you pretty well covered how I was thinking last night, but then I got to thinking about it more. The moderate version of Romney I saw last night appealed...he seemed pretty reasonable, but that same Romney was sounding very right wing during the primary. I think he's incredibly gifted at telling people what they want to hear in the moment, but the downside is that it's hard to find him credible when you put the whole picture together. He's been all over the place in a number of different issues. The way he approached debate #1 versus #3, was wildly different. You could say it was just smart strategy on his part, but it leaves me not knowing what he's about.

His big focus on the economy also leaves me confused...I like the idea that we can cut taxes, increase defense spending and decrease the deficit simultaneously, but it feels like the equivalent of building a perpetual motion machine.

 

[BrianFromWA]

i dont know about aircraft carriers but submarines are not included in the number of ships. In fact, the number of subs are kept secret.

No, they're not. You can look up in Jane's for the exact names, and the numbers are on wikipedia.

One thing I was hoping to hear (but didn't) was a discussion about how the budget cuts that the military has already signed up for and those projected (through sequestration or new budgets) will shape the force heading toward 2020 and beyond. Right now we have fewer submarines and carriers than any other time in the last 50 years, while our missions (as defined in the national security strategy and other governing documents) have only increased. Part of my work on the outside was projections of force levels with funding requirements for new classes of ships as these retire. In the next 20 years, there are Congressional requirements to have updated classes (due to performance and security requirements, as well as aging) of a) ICBMs (currently an Air Force-only force), b) sea-launched nuclear missiles, c) ballistic missile submarines (Ohio replacement), c) carriers, d) continuing the Virginia class production runs (which are currently under budget) while the Los Angeles class ages out and retires, and e) replacements of the conventional ships -- destroyers and frigates -- that are the backbone and force multiplier of the various partnerships we're setting up around the world (in order to have a smaller military overall). And that's just the Navy.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Mook, you pretty well covered how I was thinking last night, but then I got to thinking about it more. The moderate version of Romney I saw last night appealed...he seemed pretty reasonable, but that same Romney was sounding very right wing during the primary. I think he's incredibly gifted at telling people what they want to hear in the moment, but the downside is that it's hard to find him credible when you put the whole picture together. He's been all over the place in a number of different issues. The way he approached debate #1 versus #3, was wildly different. You could say it was just smart strategy on his part, but it leaves me not knowing what he's about.

His big focus on the economy also leaves me confused...I like the idea that we can cut taxes, increase defense spending and decrease the deficit simultaneously, but it feels like the equivalent of building a perpetual motion machine.

Although I am voting for Romney, I am not buying hook line and sinker that he can do the things he claims.

He will not decrease the deficit. But I do beleive he will make tough cuts and not spend as much as Obama. (There is a whole debate I will push aside if the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class stays the same" is that good for the country.)

 

[Denny Crane]

mobes, I know you understand how you can cut tax rates and raise revenues.

How about if you tax 60M people instead of 50M? Those additional 10M would be people who aren't working now that either get good new jobs or who push those already working up the income ladder. I think that's what both he and Ryan mean when they talk about broadening the tax base.

Another way of broadening the tax base is if these 60M people also earn 1.x times what they make now, due to a good economy.

Another way they can raise revenues while lowering the actual rates is by the elimination of deductions. Romney didn't even pay 15% tax rate for capital gains, more like 14%. So if we actually made him pay 15%, you'd get 1/15th more money just from him (and everyone like him).

What I feel Romney and Ryan have not explained very well is the ultimate benefit of lower tax rates, even if there were NO deductions at all. Every additional $1 you earn at lower tax rates means more money you get to keep. This is a pretty good incentive to work longer, harder, smarter, invent things, and so on. Things that ultimately will make the economy stronger and lift all boats, so to speak.

 

[BrianFromWA]

To be fair, MARIS suggests that it is the people (in your examples) who should have defended their own rights and sovereignty vs a 3rd party nation stepping in.

So we should've just let Hitler continue his power grab? Since the Poles, Czechs, French, Romanians, Belgians, Danes obviously didn't want to keep governing themselves? While some may be all for government based on genocide of the opposition, I think that's dangerous. We saw what the "self-governance" Japan ruled over China in the 20's and 30's led to, and that's not something I'm prepared to accept, either.

Like it or not, we're a global world now. The time when you could just leave good people alone to deal with genocidal dictators ended a while ago. And it's nothing new. We were a "3rd party nation" stepping in against the Barbary pirates, against the dictators of the Banana Republics, against Austria-Germany in WWI and the axis in WWII, during the Cold War, Kuwait, Kosovo, OEF and OIF. And as long as you have veto authority for the members of the UN Security Council who are only about self-interest, you're going to need to maintain a strong, global force in order to maintain your way of life.

 

[Denny Crane]

So we should've just let Hitler continue his power grab? Since the Poles, Czechs, French, Romanians, Belgians, Danes obviously didn't want to keep governing themselves? While some may be all for government based on genocide of the opposition, I think that's dangerous. We saw what the "self-governance" Japan ruled over China in the 20's and 30's led to, and that's not something I'm prepared to accept, either.

Like it or not, we're a global world now. The time when you could just leave good people alone to deal with genocidal dictators ended a while ago. And it's nothing new. We were a "3rd party nation" stepping in against the Barbary pirates, against the dictators of the Banana Republics, against Austria-Germany in WWI and the axis in WWII, during the Cold War, Kuwait, Kosovo, OEF and OIF. And as long as you have veto authority for the members of the UN Security Council who are only about self-interest, you're going to need to maintain a strong, global force in order to maintain your way of life.

I don't know what would have happened with Hitler if we let him continue his power grab. It seems to me he would have lost to Russia and/or he'd have run out of money.

There's a difference between sending out the navy to protect our merchant ships from pirates on the high seas and using the military to install governments in 3rd world nations (banana republics). The former is protecting our people against, well, piracy The second is making us into the enemies of entire nations of people.

And we value our society because we fought for it. The Afghanis don't seem to value much of what we gave them after occupying their nation. I mean, they call Karzai "the mayor of Kabul," which is ridiculing our efforts.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't know what would have happened with Hitler if we let him continue his power grab. It seems to me he would have lost to Russia and/or he'd have run out of money.

He also would've had jet fighters and nuclear weapons. I'm less cavalier with lives of people being victims of genocide, I guess. Call me a bleeding heart.

There's a difference between sending out the navy to protect our merchant ships from pirates on the high seas and using the military to install governments in 3rd world nations (banana republics). The former is protecting our people against, well, piracy The second is making us into the enemies of entire nations of people.

Is Iraq our enemy right now?

And we value our society because we fought for it. The Afghanis don't seem to value much of what we gave them after occupying their nation. I mean, they call Karzai "the mayor of Kabul," which is ridiculing our efforts.[/QUOTE]

First, I think you need to meet more Afghans. "They" who call Karzai the "Mayor of Kabul" is less a ridicule than a statement of fact. The centralized government still hasn't gained a foothold in (or supplied money to) the villages who have not cared about what went on in Kabul/Kandahar for hundreds of years. That doesn't mean that it's not working, or it's not safer, or the quality of life isn't immensely better.

And not to derail the discussion, but less than 9% of Americans alive have ever put on a uniform to fight for it. That doesn't mean that the 91% don't deserve those rights or value it less.

 

[Denny Crane]

He also would've had jet fighters and nuclear weapons. I'm less cavalier with lives of people being victims of genocide, I guess. Call me a bleeding heart.

Is Iraq our enemy right now?

And we value our society because we fought for it. The Afghanis don't seem to value much of what we gave them after occupying their nation. I mean, they call Karzai "the mayor of Kabul," which is ridiculing our efforts.

First, I think you need to meet more Afghans. "They" who call Karzai the "Mayor of Kabul" is less a ridicule than a statement of fact. The centralized government still hasn't gained a foothold in (or supplied money to) the villages who have not cared about what went on in Kabul/Kandahar for hundreds of years. That doesn't mean that it's not working, or it's not safer, or the quality of life isn't immensely better.

And not to derail the discussion, but less than 9% of Americans alive have ever put on a uniform to fight for it. That doesn't mean that the 91% don't deserve those rights or value it less.

Hitler wouldn't have had nukes, and like I said, he probably would have run out of money. For all the horror of the genocide he committed, they ended up using gas chambers because bullets cost too much.

The people of Afghanistan don't want the government we're foisting on them, or they would call Karzai the president of their country.

 

[MARIS61]

To be fair, MARIS suggests that it is the people (in your examples) who should have defended their own rights and sovereignty vs a 3rd party nation stepping in.

My suggestion goes a bit further, that governments "propped up" by the US or others are doomed to fail due to lack of representation by the masses.