world

Obama savages Romney foreign policy in last debate

234 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

234 Comments
Login to comment

Looking forward to hearing how Obama is going to try to explain his campaign theme about how he has single-handedly won the war on terror a little more than a month after his Libyan ambassador was executed by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. He better hope that Candy Crowley is waiting in the front row to back up his BS answers.

-19 ( +10 / -29 )

Romney should be prepared to be used as a mop head once again. I am sure he will be used to wipe the floor in as dramatic a way as the last debate.

12 ( +20 / -9 )

I'm sure we'll get to see all the dirt everyone has saved up until now. I'll probably just skip it, and read about it later. These are shows, not debates. They should just arm wrestle...it would be more interesting.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Romney has a flood of gifts that Obama has given him, if I were Obama, I'd be nervous a lot! The missile defense shield, Obama's remarks to Medvedev, the fallout of what is happening in the ME, snubbing Netanyahu, don't even start on Libya, being soft on China, Taliban making a comeback in Afghanistan, Al Qaida making a strong comeback. Obama has a lot of explaining to do and as Wolfpack said, I'm sure Obama will be looking for Crowley to try to bail him out. Betcha Axelrod is feeling sweaty about now. Make no mistake Romney can blow it as well, don't want to overstate anything, but in comparison to what Obama has in his closet. If he opens his mouth, especially when it comes to his foreign policy history, a bone or two will definitely fly out.

-19 ( +5 / -24 )

I hope China is not discussed, It could hurt their feelings.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Don't forget how the WH outed the SEALS after the Bin Laden killing which lead to a bunch of them getting killed. I don't think even Chris (Tingly Leg) Matthews as the moderator could save the Bower-in-Chief on all his foreign policy blunders.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

I have been watching the Mega Socialist National Barack Channel, they are in another dimension over there. It's probably one of the best channels to watch next to the Disney Channel. Matthews talks as if Obama is the highest Omnipotent entity out there.

-16 ( +6 / -22 )

Obama leads with the first attack. Romney defends.

Oh, this is gonna be good for Team Democrat.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

"What I've learned about being CiC: You gotta be clear"

Ha! Obama is winning.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Whoa. Barack just opened up a can of whup-ass...

...but Romney, ain't taking it lying down.

This is getting ugly.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Romney: "Attacking me is not an agenda." Trying to get the sympathy card.

Y'know. Whining.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

This is getting ugly.

Ya think they might be fighting over something, uhm, important...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Romney stated that Syria is Iran's route to the sea.

First of all, the two countries do not share a common border. Secondly, Iran has hundreds of miles of coastline as well as ports on the Persian Gulf.

Iran. Persia. Persian Gulf -- get it, Mr. Romney?

19 ( +21 / -2 )

Obama hits Romney for not being willing to stand up to Gaddafi, which, of course, a position that is completely inconsistent with Romney's Syria bluster.

Obama is owning the Libya side of the debate so far. Which is bad for Team Money. 'Cause Libya was supposed to be their item.

I'm lovin' It™

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Notice, Rmoney is being, well, respectful to the President here. Sitting presidents really have a home court advantage on foreign policy.

Lovin it.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Ya think they might be fighting over something, uhm, important...

We going to do this again, are we?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@JT

I love reading your posts. You are so in denial. Obama is all over the place. Of course, Romney needs to be respectful and why, because he is the President, but now he is talking about income redistribution, the old Socialist mantra that he is so infamous for.

Strike!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I'm hearing a lot of: "I'm essentially going to do everything you plan to do, but I'm going to do it better than you."

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Romney embellishes his education record as Mass governor -- wandering way off the foreign affairs theme.

President Obama reminds him that most of the education initiatives and improvements Romney was taking credit for were put in place before Romney became governor.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The President unleashes a broadside of sarcasm...

"We visited the website quite a bit, and it still doesn't work."

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Obama will not give ground. He not only defends, but fiercely counter attacks.

His Israel and "clarity of leadership" ripostes are devastating.

Also, Bob Schaefer's moderation is excellent. Best debate of the four.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Lots of great moments for Obama today, but the last minute or two here have just been devastating to Romney.

Romney just wilted—started to demand time for rebuttal, then backed down. Probably was trying to avoid looking like a dick, but ended up looking like a wimp, which is worse.

This debate is really a massacre.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

We going to do this again, are we?

Nah, let's just agree that Obama is whooping some serious Romney butt.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Crassic:

See that look in Mitt Romney's eyes. That's the feeling a guy with $300 million has when he's found something he can't buy. — @LOLGOP via web

3 ( +7 / -4 )

This debate is really a massacre.

And Obama is slowing drowning in his river of lies

Obama seems suspiciously knowledgeable about foreign affairs for someone born in Kenya.

Didn't know snubbing Israel had anything to do with Kenya.

-21 ( +3 / -24 )

Nah, let's just agree that Obama is whooping some serious Romney butt.

JTDanMan,

I will say, I think this is how you do it: aggressive, forceful argument that is still (largely) respectful. It started to get snippy at the beginning, but thanks to Bob's minimally intrusive but firm moderation (and to the round table format) things have been kept under control (candidates aren't allowed to overrun each other, and there are none of the uncomfortable invasion-of-space issue that you had with townhall debate). Again, best debate out of four.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Triumvere

Well, this debate is about foreign policy. Team America and all that.

And Romney and Obama each had their chance to flex to their base.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Romney is going to protect the world from a China that counterfeits valves.

This guy is so out of his league.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

In re: Detroit going bankrupt:

"Govenor Romney, that is not what you said.....The people of Detroit remember what you said."

LOL!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Good news Mitt! Just 7 more minutes left.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

LOLOL!!!!

Romney – "I was born in Detroit..... I would do nothing to hurt the US auto industry."

He said let GM go bankrupt. - 88,000 direct jobs and more than a million downstream jobs – gone!

What is this loser talking about?!?

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Mitt just had his butt handed to him on a plate.

Obama point-by-point told Romney about smart choices.

Mitt immediately changes the subject and goes off on a wild ramble through the mental bushes.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Heh, well it's 4:30 in the am here but it was worth getting up for. Good to see Obama finally back to form and wiping the floor:

Foreign policy from the eighties, social policies from the fifties and economic policies from he twenties.

Ouch.

May I commend Governor Romney however, on his use of he victim card. While it denotes how far out of his league he was in this debate, I appreciate the solace this will give to those still faithfull to Willard's World over the next few days.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Romney: annihilated!

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Closing statemena:

Obama looks so much stronger than first debate, looking straight into camera. Really, a tremendous performance tonight from the president. And he's ending by asking people for their vote—and making it clear that he wants to be rehired.

Romney says Obama will reduce my take home pay. And now Mr. Severely Conservative says he's Severely Bipartisan. LOL

Obama wins. Game and Set. Two more weeks from tomorrow, America gets Obama for a second term. Awesome.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"The President came to attack; Romney came to agree."

Thank you James Carville.

Republican talking head actually said "We are not that concerned about foreign policy."

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I can't see how Romney wins this one...

His policy seems to be "I'll largely do what you are doing, but I'll do it better." How do we know that he'll do it better? "I know how to get it done. No details for you, just trust me."

Romney threw some good punches, but Obama brushed them off and hit back hard. I felt he was the more commanding, and his rhetoric more effective.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Romney: annihilated!

That would have been nice. Unfortunately, Romney did not come off as a, well, Sarah Palin; so for a guy who has no foreign policy experience, Romney didn't get annihilated.

'Cause he attacked Romney from the left. Too funny.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If Obama told Mitt point-by-point about smart choices then why has he not made any "smart choices" in the last four years. Trillions of new debt, our enemies no longer fear us and our friends no longer trust us AND our economy held together with food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability payments and "do nothing" public sector jobs. You made some real good choices Obama. Let GM go bankrupt and break the strangle-hold of the unions, thus reducing the cost of GM cars. The big losers at GM were the investors. $1,500 of the current cost is due to retiree pensions & medical costs.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

From the Right Wing Blogosphere: Romney is the peace candidate. LOL.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It was a good debate. Romney came and showed up, smooth and fluid and proved that he is the better man for the economy and foreign policy, Obama looked tense and tried hard to strike, but ultimately failed in is futile attempts to shake up Romney. Good on Romney!

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

Right wing talking head:

"Obama won the debate. Sure, 'Cause he attacked. Attacked because he is losing. Romney has the momentum. Romney passed the CiC test. Bla bla bla"

What fun!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Trium

That's Ok, Romney was good not to take Obama's bait, had he'd done that, it would have been all over for him, instead, he kept his cool, middle of the road, let Obama come off as the irrational one and he proved his point, passed the test that he can lead, that's all he needed to do.

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

Romney came and showed up,

Yep. That he did.

The extent to which Romney declined to re-litigate his strong Libya attacks against Obama says it all.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama went into the debate with one goal, don't mess it up. And he succeeded in this regard. A secondary objective of this debate would have been to marginalize Romney, in this regard he kind of fell flat. The attacks were brutal and several were very effective but Romney just wouldn't take the bait and the President looked a little frustrated a couple of the times just ignored the statement.

Romney had two primary goals. The first was to appear like someone who could be in the oval office. On that he did well, both candidates appeared to be well versed in their respective stump speeches. The other goal was to appeal to moderates while maintaining base enthusiasm, the results were a little mixed on this one. He's done well pivoting to the center but I think he may be overreaching.

I think both candidates scored some decisive hits. Obama was more aggressive, but maybe a little overzealous in the effort to deliver one-liners, but those only work if the other guy plays ball and Romney (and the moderator) weren't playing into it.

On that matter I'd say that Bob was probably the best moderator of the four debates.

I think both parties will mark this up as a victory.

LOLOL!!!!

Delivered with customary dignity and grace.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It was a good debate. Romney came and showed up, smooth and fluid

In other words, Romney got decimated. He couldn't counter-punch because he had nothing to counter-punch with, hence he tried to hijack the debate and try to pivot to domestic policy (Romney's comfort zone)

and proved that he is the better man for the economy

Except the topic is FOREIGN policy.

but ultimately failed in is futile attempts to shake up Romney. Good on Romney!

You're plain silly...you can't even admit that Romney lost! When Obama lost the first debate, at least the dems conceded and admitted that Obama's performance was dismal. But when Romney gets destroyed, the gop say its a tie or that Romney won. PUUUULLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE!

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Romney could have failed to shown up and bass would be screaming he'd won the debate.

Romnial in it's finest hour. And twilight.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I think many of the other candidates should be allowed to debate also.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

CBS debate insta-poll: 53% Obama win, 23% Romney

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The job well done, Mr. President. Best performance as I expected. Solid rock!!

He showed he was very comfortable under his skin when he was speaking each issue. That's a leadership skill.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Mitt's little more than a schoolboy in a suit - his "supporters" have such a hard time admitting this.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

That's Ok, Romney was good not to take Obama's bait, had he'd done that, it would have been all over for him, instead, he kept his cool, middle of the road, let Obama come off as the irrational one and he proved his point, passed the test that he can lead, that's all he needed to do.

Bass4funk - in other words, "Romney didn't get completely destroyed"

Sounds to me like Romney pulled a Roberto Duran..."No mas!, no mas!"

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Claiming Romney did a good job in this debate is Akin to claiming there’s such a thing as “legitimate” rape.

Conservatives are good at getting the logic backwards.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Swing state voters say Obama won the debate 53-42, and are planning to vote for him 51-45 -PPP

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Liked Obama's line about there being fewer bayonets and horses today compared to 1916. Good point. Got a laugh from the audience.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Liked Obama's line about there being fewer bayonets and horses today compared to 1916. Good point. Got a laugh from the audience.

Fun fact, we may actually have more bayonets in service right now than at any point in history considering they come standard with M-16 and M-4 rifles. There have actually been bayonet charges orchestrated by US and NATO troops as recently as a few years ago.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

CNN Poll Obama: 48 Romney: 40

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Obama will paint the world so roses and by attacking Romney like pack of Hyenas to make himself looking victorious. He would claim a robust nations building against international crisis, which in fact a false statement in order to carry on the deception in place of his own record. China and Russia are against U.S most turns at the U.N. Almost certain not even one word of Islamist extremist will be spoken by Obama. and cyber security threat from China. Shame.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

R's will vote R, D's will vote D, and others will split the vote. The people will lose, again.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@Mirai

In other words, Romney got decimated. He couldn't counter-punch because he had nothing to counter-punch with, hence he tried to hijack the debate and try to pivot to domestic policy (Romney's comfort zone)

He didn't have to, Romney didn't take the bait that Obama tried to snag him on and I saw that early, his demeanor was mild, he wasn't aggressive and that showed the people that he can be calm Presidential, so he went out and proved that he could do that. Obama, got angry, rude Obnoxious at times. Not good.

@Sushi, you can't vote in the US, so whatever, but to entertain you, I never drink Kool-aid, I like Minute Maid 100% Obama tried, his anger got the best of him, Romney was right to go after Obama on the economy stating that there is no way we can afford to spend money on these rogue nations. As far as which woman looked hotter, that depends on your own preference.

@hoser Romney did fine, he showed that he can lead, that was primarily what this debate was about and he met his objective, job well done.

@Mad

No, not true. I am NOT a Partisan, been saying that for a long time, but if I have to choose the lesser of two evils and the judging by the last 4 years, I would never vote for Obama.

-18 ( +1 / -19 )

R's will vote R, D's will vote D, and others will split the vote. The people will lose, again.

Sounds about right.

Like I've said before. I watch these debates because they're the closest thing I get to bloodsport in this country. I'm not voting for either of them, but for a libertarian jerk such as myself tis the season for aggravating every politically affiliated person I know. It's like Christmas but I'm the only one having fun.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Herve

I get your point, but that's our system and that's how it's going to go down, you either will vote for the Socialist or the Businessman. I don't see our system changing anytime soon.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Mitt Romney, The Terrorists' Choice, loses again.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@Sushi

Apparently, you think Obama handled Benghazi, Israel and the whole of the ME and the resurgence of Al Qaida and the Taliban just fine. lol

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Must be tough to be a 'Tervative at this point.

It's now only a matter of days before Americans award President Obama a second term.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Looking forward to seeing the 'Tervatives get butt-whipped by the wrong side of history - AGAIN. :-)

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Bass - Mitt avoided the subject like the plague.

Shows he knows his position is quicksand. Pity you don't.

lol :-)

4 ( +6 / -2 )

So, Barack failed to deliver a knockout blow to Mitt.

The economy still sucks.

Obama still doesn't have a lock on re-election!

Some analysts are predicting Romney will win the popular vote and Obama will win the Electoral College vote. Well, the Electoral College did save us from an Al Gore presidency, but technically Gore should have been the next president. Time to retire the Electoral College. Whoever wins the popular vote should win the election.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

CNN Poll Obama: 48 Romney: 40

Forgot the part about the 4.5 margin of error making that a statistical stalemate. I know you guys like to run with what you get but lets chill, my scroll wheel is getting sore.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Time to retire the Electoral College. Whoever wins the popular vote should win the election.

I agree. Enough with this Red State / Blue State nonsense. I'm tired of having my vote essentially not count because I don't live in PA or OH.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@TheQuestion

I see that you and Bass like to use the same arithmetic that Ryan uses to create his budget.

Even with MoE, Obama wins. PPP has a 11 point spread. CBS has a 20 point spread. How is this a stalemate? I KNOW: it's NOT!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

If Tagg Romney wanted to take a "swing" at Obama after the 2nd debate, he will want to buy a horse & bayonet after this one.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Laura Ingram: "Romney using kid gloves ag Obama tonight--WHY?!"

Dick Morris: "Romney is not hitting obama on Israel. Obama is effective when he articlates his policy but looks horrible when he attacks"

S.E. Cupp: "Obama is making laughable, easily argued points. But Romney's not effectively arguing them."

David Limbaugh: "Why do these advisers tell Mitt not to go for the jugular? Why?"

In other words, even conservative pundits agree that Romney was decimated tonight.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Obama: "every time you've offered an opinion it's been wrong"

That's his opinion.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Personally, I though this was better than the bayonet and horses line.

"The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back." -- Barack Obama

6 ( +8 / -2 )

So Obama calls his apology tour the biggest whopper of the campaign, eh? Pfft! Obama tells whoppers bigger than Burger King makes.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

It's hard to feel sorry for Romney when even he knew he didn't have a fight to put up.

FAIL.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"signs that swing states Florida and North Carolina are slipping towards the Republican"

Slipping? Not leaning? Anyway, how is this possible? Are the pollsters in the tank for Romney?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Romney was cool, and respectful of Obama; as he presented his own foreign policy.

Obama was the usual blend of condescending and sarcastic, with equal parts defensive, or in fact-light attack mode.

Easy to see how he could never reach across the aisle...

Soon, it'll be a moot point-

Mitt Romney is on the money, pun intended.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

NEWS FLASH: In 2008 neither candidate had experience on hands-on "foreign policy" issues, so its only natural for an incumbant to have more information (which he alone is privy to) and practical experience than his challenger. Romney held is own for the most part -- for a guy who's academic and business experience is light years ahead of the average person don't you think he can handle foreign policy once he's in the WH -- what, only the "annointed one" has that gift. And besides, most Americans only care about domestic issues. People working two part-time jobs because they cannot find full-time work and students drowning in loans without a job couldn't give a rat's rear end about foreign policy....

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I LOVE how Romney kept trying to take a debate on FOREIGN POLICY and bring up the domestic economy when he could not answer questions. It was quite humerous, and smacked of complete desperation. Obama had some nice zingers in there, too. Pretty clear Romney doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, nor a clue what to do with either foreign or domestic policy.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s,” Obama said.

But the Romboid has binders full of women to help him recover from this a** whooping he took tonight.

In the ultimate etch-a-sketch moment the Romboid tried to be more like Obama than Obama. Surprised the Romboid did not get an afro before the debate. If he would get any votes from it the Romboid would get the afrosheen out.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Pretty interesting to watch Republicans panic on this thread. They should be panicking, though -- I think they're finally starting to grasp the reality of the situation; they've picked yet another dud, who picked a dud to run with him, and they've lost as a result.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Serrano: "So Obama calls his apology tour the biggest whopper of the campaign, eh? Pfft! Obama tells whoppers bigger than Burger King makes."

I see you guys, in your desperation, are sticking with the tired old lines your GOP has hashed up to hide their failures and incompetence? Classic! Romnesia once again.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Romney got schooled again by the C.I.C. He's a lightweight in ideology,on anything outside Utah's borders and just plain unacceptable to be the head man in charge,along with having an unlikeable demeanor.So hurry up election,it won't be as close as Obama detractors/haters want to believe. But Mitt ain't it can go back to his V.C. portofolio,which is waiting for him.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Even with MoE, Obama wins. PPP has a 11 point spread. CBS has a 20 point spread. How is this a stalemate? I KNOW: it's NOT!

It's like poking a bees nest. I love it when you guys get riled up.

It must be really hard for you and your buddies in the Romney camp to be so gung-ho over who's dog is best. Unfortunately for the rest of us both dogs have left stains all over the rug and had their way with the throw pillows.

It's like how I can't stand soccer, hate the game and I've never been able to sit through a whole match, but I had the best time watching some friends of mine in a bar watching Arsenal play Tottenham and deliberately supporting the team they hated. Same concept applies here. I think the game you're playing is pointless, I don't like either team, but watching the lot of you froth at the mouth is fantastic.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

bass4funk: "That's Ok, Romney was good not to take Obama's bait,"

So you're saying Romney was good not to answer the questions given or debate topic at hand? Yeah, THAT makes a good leader! haha. Fact is he could not, so I guess in a way you are correct -- why take on a job that you cannot possibly do?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

“We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Those ships are counted in the total ship totals. And as a matter of fact, we are down to 10 carriers and will fall below that when the Enterprise is decommissioned. Ask the guys that are now doing 9-10 month deployments because the numbers of carrier strike groups is smaller than before. When the President sends one someplace, another has to be ready to fill in other commitments.

So Obama, attempting to make a "zinger" misspoke and those who actually know how the Navy operates can see through it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Alphaape: "So Obama, attempting to make a "zinger" misspoke and those who actually know how the Navy operates can see through it."

So he was wrong about their being less horses? He said "we have aircraft carriers". Where did he say there are more or less aircraft carriers than before, Alpha?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Boy oh boy !! I wish I had seen this debate!! Sayonara Romney!!!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Serrano: "Obama: "every time you've offered an opinion it's been wrong" That's his opinion."

Actually, it's fact, not opinion. Opinion would be Obama saying, "I think you're wrong". Don't confuse expression of opinion with pointing out the facts.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Sushi

He didn't have to put up a fight. He did a rope a dope. lol

Shows he knows his position is quicksand. Pity you don't. No, that Obama is the worst President since Carter and that he just made himself look like the angry reject that he is. Pity, I did know that.

@Mirai

This from a President that doesn't even know the difference between a Marine Corps. and "Corpse." ROFL

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

"We also have fewer horses and bayonets... There are these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines"

Guaranteed if Romney had been condescending and said this stuff to Obama, the liberals would would be complaining and saying he wasn't being respectful, and they would be right.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@Sushi

He didn't have to put up a fight. He did a rope a dope. lol

Shows he knows his position is quicksand. Pity you don't. No, that Obama is the worst President since Carter and that he just made himself look like the angry reject that he is. Pity, I did know that.

@Mirai

This from a President that doesn't even know the difference between a Marine Corps. and "Corpse." ROFL

@Smith

So you're saying Romney was good not to answer the questions given or debate topic at hand?

yep, because he didn't take that bait that Obama laid out of making him a warmonger. Good on him.

Yeah, THAT makes a good leader!

Sure does. Like Obama has done anything. Oh, yeah, good leader, but did a sh** job with the economy.

haha. Fact is he could not, so I guess in a way you are correct -- why take on a job that you cannot possibly do?

first part of your statement: as I said, he doesn't need to let Obama define him. Obama tried and failed...miserably. Second part: I ask myself that same question about Obama every single day. :-)

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

So he was wrong about their being less horses? He said "we have aircraft carriers". Where did he say there are more or less aircraft carriers than before, Alpha?

@ smithinjapan: When you count the total number of ships in the USN, you include surface ships (DDG/CG), Submarine Force (SSN?SLBM) and the Carriers (CVN) as well as the Auxilary force. All together that is 287 ships. There were no such things as aircraft carriers back then in 1916 that were used as an instrument of US Foreign policy. Now when there is a crisis in the world, the first to get there is usually an aircraft carrier with the air wing and associate combat ships.

With the fewer ships that we have now, that is putting a strain on our forces. We only have 10 carriers. Earlier in the year when there was an exercise to show strength to Iran, we used 3 carriers. Those 3 had to come from somewhere. The normal carrier that is in the Gulf was augmented by others that were either leaving or had to come early. When you speed up a deployment of a ship or prolong it, that causes a ripple effect. Thus resulting in longer deployments and shorter stay times at home.

Yes we have more modern weapons than we did in 1916, but we also have more commitments. Back then we had a small force and very little foreign commitments. It didn't take a large naval force to track down Pancho Villa in 1916, but it did take the entire air force that we had at the time, 8 airplanes of the 1st Aero squadron that were used. So I hope that we are not going back to that direction.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Serrano,

Guaranteed if Romney had been condescending and said this stuff to Obama, the liberals would would be complaining and saying he wasn't being respectful

He was, after all, talking to the man who only recently pondered why plane windows don't open...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Serrano: "Guaranteed if Romney had been condescending and said this stuff to Obama, the liberals would would be complaining and saying he wasn't being respectful, and they would be right."

What's not ironic about that comment (as everyone knows what I'm about to say to be true) is that Republicans do NOTHING but mud-sling, and so when it comes back at them this time around all you hear about is GOP whining in the media about how Obama is being "unfair" or making "low-blows". You guys try to dish it out (and fail), but man oh man you sure can't take it!

Alphaape: "When you count the total number of ships in the USN, you include surface ships (DDG/CG), Submarine Force (SSN?SLBM) and the Carriers (CVN) as well as the Auxilary force. All together that is 287 ships... bla bla"

Where does this answer my questions? You must be a Romney supporter to try and deflect like that (and fail). So again, point out to me where Obama said there were more than before and therefore his comment was "misspoke". As well, answer my question as to whether he was wrong about there being less horses than before?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nine countries maintain a total of 22 aircraft carriers in active service; almost half of those are American. Romney would cut taxes on the rich, slash government spending on health and education - and you would like another aircraft carrier, Alphaape?

In the immortal words of Austin Powers, "Well, I wanna gold plated toilet, but that's just not in the cards, is it?"

2 ( +3 / -1 )

We only have 10 carriers.

Dude. No other country has more than 2 carriers, and the vast majority of countries that have a carrier only have one. Not to mention the fact that our carriers are actually nuclear powered super-carriers.

You are honestly telling us you think 10 super-carriers aren't enough for us to project US power sufficiently?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bass: "yep, because he didn't take that bait that Obama laid out of making him a warmonger. Good on him."

Well, glad you can admit that Romney cannot answer questions given to him. No surprise really, given that he cannot give any details about his 'policies'. It's interesting that you seem to take pride in a candidate who cannot think, cannot plan, cannot answer, and cannot debate, obviously. But the GOP and its supporters never did display a lot of common sense.

"first part of your statement: as I said, he doesn't need to let Obama define him."

The man cannot even define himself except to change the definition the next day when pandering to a different audience. Point that out and he develops Romnesia, which you seem to think is 'genius' and the requirements of a good president.

"Second part: I ask myself that same question about Obama every single day. :-)"

Save that Obama's doing it, where Romney could not possibly, as has been evidenced for some time now. Stop trying to deflect and admit it already.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Savages" . . . O'bama pulled down Romney's panties and treated him like a savage??? What a stupid and laughable headline from AFP.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The final jobs report for October will be the nail in the coffin for Romney. Unemployment is down for all swing states except Virgina and New Hampshire

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Dude. No other country has more than 2 carriers, and the vast majority of countries that have a carrier only have one. Not to mention the fact that our carriers are actually nuclear powered super-carriers.

@ Triumvere: No other country is called upon to do the tasks that the USN and the USA does. Yes ours our nuclear which means that they don't have to refuel, but after continuous flying they need to take on aviation fuel for the planes, so they can't operate indefinately.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

and you would like another aircraft carrier, Alphaape?

You are honestly telling us you think 10 super-carriers aren't enough for us to project US power sufficiently?

In the words of this guy....

Former US President Bill Clinton once said: "When word of a crisis breaks ... the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: 'Where's the nearest carrier?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It's interesting how desperate the left is for their candidate to repeat what happened in the first debate, but in reverse. The usual slurs and personal attacks also make their way into the conversation, no surprise there.

As to the debate, the President did very well. He ironically came off as the more hawkish of the two men, both in policy and in style. I really think the Obama team went into overkill on the aggression though. After the first debate, there was a decision made to go all out attack for both the President and VP. Whether or not that plays well with the voters remains to be seen.

However, as the challenger, the bar was lower for Romney. All he needed to do was be acceptable. Nobody expects a challenger to have the intimate knowledge that a sitting president has in areas of national security. All they need is to be reasonable. That is what John Kerry did in 2004, for example, in debating against Bush Jr. I think that is why Romney made the conscious decision not to engage the president on many issues, and to agree on many others.

It's funny, but if someone who didn't know the candidates had watched the debate, they probably would have assumed that Romney was the sitting President and Obama the challenger. Hence the Obama strategy of attacking Romney, rather than presenting his own policies and future initiatives. It was all about Mitt, which can only make him look better in the long run.

The debates in general are favorable to challengers and a problem for incumbents. Most people have seen the current administration for 4 years, and are familiar with them. The debates are basically infomercials for the challenger- their 'coming out party' to the public. In this way, Romney succeeded. Particularly given the results of the domestic issues debate, these as a whole will prove to be a plus for the Romney campaign.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

“We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

@ smithinjapan: Take a look at the above quote from Obama and then read what I said when I mentioned the numbers of ships in the USN. You can see from my explinations that yes Obama is correct that we now have carriers and submarines, but he is not being fully honest when he says we have enough. I am familiar with this subject since I have spent the last 25 years working for the USN, and know what goes into those numbers, but do a quick search on the operational tempo that the USN has been doing in the past few years. We are pushing the feweer ships that we have further and further. Not only ships but personnel. I have had friends who have spent years on sea duty in the USN, only to be told that they have to go on an Individual Augmentee (IA) assignment that puts them in the desert of Iraq or more recently to Afgh. No ships in the Afgh highlands but people were needed to help ease the manpower shortages that the Army and Maries were feeling.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Alphaape: "@ Triumvere: No other country is called upon to do the tasks that the USN and the USA does."

Well perhaps it should do a little more at home and spend less money on more navy, as Romney wants, and put it into the economy he seems to think went into the red the day Obama was elected (Romnesia). Instead he wants to do what Laguna mentioned above.

You still haven't answered my questions... can it be that you cannot?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This was calculated, Romney did not differ with Obama on many issues, just stated that we have to do things quicker and with more force. So in the eyes of the voter, foreign policy is now a non-issue. The emphasis shifts back to the economy and that is where Romney is picking up the most strength.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Something people also need to realize is that having 10 carriers does NOT mean that there are 10 carriers patrolling the oceans. At any one time, at least two, probably three, are in port for repairs and replenishment and refurbishing. Which leaves just 7 or 8 on duty at any one time. Ditto any other complicated military hardware.

As recently at the 1990's, the navy had 15 carriers, in the 1960's the number was in the 22-25 range.

The real loss has been in other ships. THe number of subs has dropped to just over 50, from nearly 100. The rush for the coolest tools has had its pricetag.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

VRWC - "At any one time, at least two, probably three, are in port for repairs and replenishment and refurbishing. Which leaves just 7 or 8 on duty at any one time."

Sob, sob, are you saying even that's not enough?

Remind me to hand you a Kleenex.

It's a matter of degree and priorities.

Mitt wants more building for war. Obama wants more building at home.

Economies are not expanded long term by war.

Romney is wrong - again.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So stupid. Plus what is the point of saying that he has no experience as Commander in Chief. No one does until they are elected. And foreign policy = ability to kill people is the current US way of looking at the world.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Who is Mitt Romney?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Kind of reminds me of this:

Dudley Dursley: [on Dudley's birthday] How many are there?

Uncle Vernon: 36, counted them myself.

Dudley Dursley: 36! But last year, last year I had 37!

Uncle Vernon: Yes, yes, but some of them are quite a bit bigger than last year.

Dudley Dursley: I don't care how big they are!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This "debate" proved the validity of Orwell's words, " “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” ~ George Orwell"

Anyone who advocates the elimination of the Electoral College is blindly ignorant to the purpose for which it was set up to begin with.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SenseNotSoCommon: "He ( Obama ) was, after all, talking to the man who recently pondered why plane windows don't open"

Ha ha ha ha ha! Mitt's joke went right over SenseNotSoCommon's head, ha ha ha lol ...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I think AFP should get the hell out of US politics.

And learn to speak English, as saying Romney or Obama "savaged" one another is ridiculous, this isn't the South Korean parliament, nor have the attacks been brutal at all. They actually seem rather tame compared to McCain/Obama of 2008 though Obama has gotten a bit cocky thanks to being able to hide behind his (potentially shrinking) "Mr President" badge.

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorOct. 23, 2012 - 03:36PM JST

Something people also need to realize is that having 10 carriers does NOT mean that there are 10 carriers patrolling the oceans. At any one time, at least two, probably three, are in port for repairs and replenishment and refurbishing. Which leaves just 7 or 8 on duty at any one time. Ditto any other complicated military hardware.

As recently at the 1990's, the navy had 15 carriers, in the 1960's the number was in the 22-25 range.

The real loss has been in other ships. THe number of subs has dropped to just over 50, from nearly 100. The rush for the coolest tools has had its pricetag.

Worse yet, the "minicarriers" like LHD, LPH, LHA have practically disappeared, which relegate the Marines to less useful single or dual helicopter (at a reasonable time) ships. Hell, as of 2009 there are only 11 supercarriers around, maybe 15-16 if you include LHA, and just two in production GRFord Class ships (which won't be featuring a lot of the weapons and systems that were originally planned) that will only replace existing ones.

Instead, Obama forced the Pentagon to buy more tanks, which they have indeed repeatedly stated they do not need. Obama is right about the fact that the modern US military will rely on aircraft carriers and subs more than ever (one reason for limited development of other ships including the cancellation of CG(X) by obama himself), but carriers neither fight alone nor do they have enough speed to cover the distances needed without more than doubling the number.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Mitt wants more building for war. Obama wants more building at home.

@ SushiSake3: If Obama really wanted building at home, why didn't he do it so far in the past 4 years. He came in and didn't really address infrastructure issues, only getting Health care passed. So where are his construction jobs?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Expect the polls to open up after McBain was schooled once again by the his superior. The Romboid, just like bush, is an empty suit. Cant believe he agreed with Obama on nearly everything this debate. He was turning darker as the debate wore on. Maybe he is the one born in Kenya.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Herve

I know the purpose for which the Electoral College was set up - to protect the rights of smaller states. It's not necessary, and it can subvert the wishes of the voters as it did just 12 years ago. Why should the candidate who gets 50.1% of the vote in California, for example, get all 55 of California's electoral votes whilst the candidate who gets 49.9% of the vote get zero electoral votes?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Alpha - "If Obama really wanted building at home, why didn't he do it so far in the past 4 years. He came in and didn't really address infrastructure issues, only getting Health care passed. So where are his construction jobs? "

Remember the Democrats' infrastructure bills that the GOP failed to support?

Oh yeah....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sob, sob, are you saying even that's not enough?

Remind me to hand you a Kleenex.

I'd rather think you could be handed back a Globe of the world and see that most of it is covered with ocean. US Navy is spread pretty thin of late covering it all.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The moderator saying "Obama bin Laden".

Classic.

RR

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Obama: "we can't go back to policies that got us into the trouble we're in."

Romney: "I agree. We can't go back to the policies of the last four years."

Debate over. Mitt wins.

RR

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

@Zircronium;

"Expect the polls to open up after McBain was schooled once again by the his superior. The Romboid, just like bush, is an empty suit. Cant believe he agreed with Obama on nearly everything this debate. He was turning darker as the debate wore on."

A perfect example of the leftist discussion style. Rather than having a conversation about the issues, they prefer to load up on personal attacks and insults. It goes to prove what I've always thought about those to the "progressive" side of the political spectrum. Their opponents can't just be wrong, they have to be evil/stupid/nasty/bad.

The debate really highlighted the fact that there isn't that much daylight between the positions of the two candidates. Romney was honest enough to admit as much. It made him look like a reasonable alternative to President Obama, which was the point of the exercise in the first place.

@SS3. What bills were those? It seemed that President Clinton was able to work with the GOP on dozens of pieces of legislation. The current president had majorities in both the Senate and House for 2 years, yet passed nothing on infrastructure. After that, he wasn't a skilled enough (or perhaps interested enough) politician to work across the aisle to get things done.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Serrano, in your opinion it's not necessary, yet it is. The biggest scam is how the DNC/RNC have effectively blocked any serious third party run with the web of ballot rules.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Wow, talk about playing in the presidents field. Romney had his hat handed to him.

Romney looked like an idiot. His only comeback to a national security question was touting the education plans of a prior NH governor.

Still, his state was the last in job creation, which is hard to believe when you have states like Mississippi with such low overall education standing in the U.S.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

CNN’s poll found Obama beat Romney to 48 to 40%

Heh, but Carville has admitted the polling sample was plus-7 for democrats. Given the MOE, this means Mitt wins the night.

Sweeeeeet.

RR

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Sail - "I'd rather think you could be handed back a Globe of the world and see that most of it is covered with ocean. US Navy is spread pretty thin of late covering it all."

It's comes down to a matter of taste, degree, and priorities.

Obama thinks the priority is to rebuild America, infrastructure, etc.. Do you think this isn't important?

Or would you rather have 11 USN carrier battle fleets roaming the world's oceans - at incredible cost to the taxpayer - to basically not do much at all?

Sure, carriers "project power." But so do drones, and they're far cheaper to operate.

I'd actually push for at least 1 carrier battle fleet to be disbanded, rent the carrier to the British (especially since HMN is now sharing ships with the French), split the crew between British and Americans, maybe park it off Africa somewhere, and put the rest of the crew to work in America doing and building things the economy needs.

But naturally, the conservatives would shriek '"Obama is weakening America!!!"

BS. Bush massively weakened America and caused a massive drain on the economy by getting involved in 2 massively costly pointless wars.

If conservatives are going to complain about the govt weakening America, they need to point the finger at bUsH/cHeney first.

But of course, their failed and corrupt ideology makes it impossible for most of them to even contemplate that conservative ideology might be wrong.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Romeo - "Given the MOE, this means Mitt wins the night. Sweeeeeet."

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Mitt was hammered.

That's sweeeeeet. :-)

2 ( +5 / -3 )

VRWC - "After that, he wasn't a skilled enough (or perhaps interested enough) politician to work across the aisle to get things done."

Erhhrrr, no.

As usual, the 'tervatives have it ar*e backwards.

Obama's infrastructure bill didn't get passed because the GOP just said "no" - to every bill he presented.

I know you know that. There's no need to embarrass yourself any further than you already have. :-)

1 ( +4 / -3 )

A nice diss SS 3.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's comes down to a matter of taste, degree, and priorities.

Over 90 percent of trade among countries is carried by ships. Ensuring that trade can happen safely and unhindered between nations is the number one priority. The US Navy is the prime protector for keeping all the sea lanes open, including the Persian gulf and the worlds oil supply routes.

Lose that protection in the worlds sea lanes and you will see the present world economic difficulities we are experiencing look like the good old days.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Other presidents, from both parties, could work together with their opponents in Congress to get things done. Why not Obama? It's well known that his attitude was that he shouldn't have to dirty his hands in the day to day operation of government. Instead, he largely left it to his surrogates, who couldn't get the job done.

I mean hell, Obama's OWN party also said "no" to his own budgets, every year.

The embarrassment isn't mine, it's the President's. He squandered too much political capital on health care, wasted the stimulus money on making the banks whole instead of helping homeowners directly, and failed in his promise to restore transparency to Washington.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The latest right-wing talking point - that Obama refused to work with Congress - puts reality so far on its head that Lewis Carroll would be confused. Yes, VRWC, and up is down and black is white. Clearly, Romnesia is not limited to Romney.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

VRWC - "Other presidents, from both parties, could work together with their opponents in Congress to get things done. Why not Obama?"

Here we go again!

Another totally shameless attempt by a card-carrying 'tervative to re-write history.

Good luck with that!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Laguna: "Clearly, Romnesia is not limited to Romney."

You beat me to it, although what you said was made quite evident the other day with posts by bass and sailwind, as well as skipbeat and others.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

VRWC,

"wasted the stimulus money on making the banks whole instead of helping homeowners directly"

He, whoooa there hoss. Conservatives making socialist soundin' noises.

In fact even most of the socialists I know wouldn't want to help out people who were dumb enough to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

" Clearly, Romnesia is not limited to Romney."

Whoever said it was!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I feel for my conservative friends across the aisle.

They have that cold, gripping pang of hollow fear in their stomachs knowing that candidate Romney - the latest in a string of abject losers to be nominated by the Right (exc. McCain) - is on his way into the trash can of history in just 2 short weeks.

Hint to my conservative friends: Next time, try picking a candidate with an IQ greater than the number of states. :-)

Good times. :-)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama savages Romney foreign policy in last debate

Even if this statement were true, why did he need to?

He has been president for 4 years, if his foreign policy was so damn successful, why get worked into a froth over what Mitt Romney said?

But Obama did get worked up. He was on the defensive, for most of the debate, overcompensating for the fact that woulda, shoulda, coulda, don't get you re-elected.

Romney did pass muster, and then some.

He looked very much the next American president.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Just shows what a mistake it is to assume you know about someone...

Bill Clinton worked with a GOP controlled congress for most of his presidency, and the results were impressive. I have to admit that, even being a card carrying member of the VRW Conspiracy. He worked with (gasp) Newt Gingrich and the rest of the vulgar righties. Or are you saying that John Boehner is more of an idealogue and more stubborn than Newt.....

It's not a talking point, it is proven history.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A great comment from the NY Times. They basically said Romney sounded like a beauty queen wishing for world peace in his closing statements.

There was not a lot of substance in Mitt's latest debate performance, but a lack of substance has been true for his whole campaign.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Pamelot - "Romney did pass muster, and then some. He looked very much the next American president."

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Mitt was shown up as the clueless, flip-flopping fraud he has always been.

Obama shredded him when he outlined all the policy flip-flops Mitt's done.

As I said last week, I'm suspecting Romney actually has mental issues - he simply cannot stay with one position.

It seems impossible for him.

At least bUsH was able to do just that, even if his key positions were hopelessly wrong.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The latest right-wing talking point - that Obama refused to work with Congress - puts reality so far on its head that Lewis Carroll would be confused.

Not to the audience at George Washington University though, when he Obama gave his economic speech just after Congressman Paul Ryan first introduced his budget plans.

It started in April of last year when the president invited the Wisconsin congressman and House Budget Committee chairman to hear his speech on fiscal policy at George Washington University here in Washington.

Asking Ryan to be there might have seemed like a gesture of good will toward Ryan, who had just weeks earlier unveiled his controversial budget.

Instead, sitting in the front row, Ryan listened as his plan -- and by extension Ryan himself -- was eviscerated by the president of the United States.

As Obama picked it apart, Ryan grew more annoyed, shaking his head at times and scribbling notes. As soon as the speech was over, Ryan darted out of the room.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/11/13234565-obama-gets-his-target-with-pick-of-ryan?lite

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Here's some examples, not that they aren't already widely know -

In July 2009, Mitt wrote that he thought his healthcare plan in MA should be a model for the nation. When he started running as a "severely Conservative" candidate in the Republican primaries, he decided that ObamaCARES, which is the same as his healthcare plan, wasn't a good plan.

While running for Governor of Mass. he was pro-choice and supported Planned Parenthood. As a Republican candidate for President, he flipped to pro-life and wants to defund Planned Parenthood.

He opposed the auto bailout, now wants to take credit for it. He wanted 20% across the board tax cuts until the first debate when he didn't want tax cuts for the wealthy any longer.

He said that 47% of the nation wouldn't take responsibility for their own lives until the MSM reported it and he suddenly decided that he wanted to be President of 100% of the nation.

And the list goes on and on and on. Whatever the issue, Romney has been on both sides of it.

Why are Republicans okay with this?

VRWC?

Sailwind?

Romeo?

Serrano?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Oh, and let's not forget how Romney claimed to have successfully "saved" the 2002 Olympics.

He did it with $2 billion from the government when bUsh was president.

Yes, he used the government to save the Olympics, but now he claims the nation needs less government.

What. A. Joke.

Good times. :-)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

VRWC,

I'm not sure any of you conservatives grasp that the GOP of Clinton's era is not the radicalised GOP of this day and age. Look at the nuts in the Tea Party for pete's sake.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Instead, sitting in the front row, Ryan listened as his plan -- and by extension Ryan himself -- was eviscerated by the president of the United States."

Oh please, they're politicians, put that victim card away.

Heh, there's a reason the Ryan plan failed in the senate and the fact-checker.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The NY Times compared Romney's closing statements to a beauty queen's wish for "world peace".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Romney the CIC? I can only hope not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Group huge from Romney, awww. How cute.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The USA is the cause of her own economics downfall and definitely not by any country in the world. The politicians of D and R parties are not good in running the country, other then creating troubles around the globe. Run your own country well and let the UN manage the global issues.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

LA Times has the headline, " Romney endorses Obama."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

A CIC who doesn't know Marines are not issued bayonets? Man, Obama blew that one. Obviously, Romnesia is not limited to Romney.

RR

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Yes, VRWC, and up is down and black is white. Clearly, Romnesia is not limited to Romney.

@ Laguana: You are correct. It is not just limited to Romney but to Bill Clinton and Obama also. Clinton spoke of no president being able to make an economy bounce back after 4 years and he was wrong. It happened under the Harding Admin in1921. After WWI the US economy contracted due to loss of wartime production jobs. He ran the government like a business and instituted. By summer of his first year in office, an economic recovery began. Harding cut taxes, starting in 1922. The top marginal rate was reduced annually in four stages from 73% in 1921 to 25% in 1925. Taxes were cut for lower incomes starting in 1923. Revenues to the treasury increased substantially. Unemployment also continued to fall, the changes in marginal tax rates were accompanied by an expansion in the tax base that could account for the increase in revenue.

True looking back they didn't have the Glass-Stegal Act to prevent the crisis of the Great Depression when banks over extended, just like they did when Clinton was in office and he repealed it and the good times rolled in the 90's and early 2000's. But we have a record of history of what works. Obama seems bent on not looking back at that history and doing the things that got us out of problems in the past.

He and his kind are the real sufferers of Romnesia.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Romeo - "A CIC who doesn't know Marines are not issued bayonets? Man, Obama blew that one."

I also hear your president is not aware of the orientation toilet paper is put into holders in Marine toilets.

I agree both these failings immediately disqualifies Obama from any claim to a second term.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Apples and oranges, Alphaape. The economy is in the tank now not due to a sudden contraction of government spending but because of an overextended, over-leveraged public. What Harding inherited was similar to the "peace dividend" Clinton inherited; what Obama inherited was similar to what FDR inherited. Many economists have noted that unraveling such a large amount of debt takes time. Asset prices must stabilize, households must rebuild their finances, and individuals must come to terms with the reality of stagnant wealth.

Most economists also agree that this has substantially been accomplished, and hence the economic good news dribbling out. Housing starts are up, wages and employment have stabilized, and so have asset prices. Also, contrary to GOP opinion, Obama has put in place a policy that substantially limits government spending over the medium term - and the fiscal situation will look much better once revenues are added to the mix.

Really, whoever is elected in November will inherit a somewhat rosy scenario. The difference is that Obama would build on it, while Romney, at the bequest of his GOP congressional overseers, would screw it up.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Other than a having a strong military, most Americans have no interest in foreign policy. Americans care about having to pay $5 a gallon for gas and food is a lot higher than is was 4 years ago. Obama cannot blame Bush for the high price of gas and food -- it happened on his watch. Lets see, Romney has a JD and MBA from Harvard, ran a successful company, Governor of a state -- leaving office with a surplus by the way and pulled off a very successful winter Olympics. AND when his wife is FIrst Lady she won't dress like she's a walking infomercial for Gold's Gym...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I don't care about who wins a debate, who has better eye contacts, who looks stronger. I just hope Americans pick the right guy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Two persons who strive to preserve America's standing as an empire, which decides who will govern at every country on the globe (now dealing with Syria after doing Libya). Two models: One model is bright, shining, modern and sophisticated; the other is oldish, simplistic and primitive. But both strive for the same thing.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"Obama cannot blame Bush for the high price of gas and food -- it happened on his watch."

Now this is pretty good Romnial.

Obviously crops being used more for fuel and poor weather across the globe is Obama's fault. I understand that.

And I seem to remember the price of fuel doubling just about everywhere when the last Republican moron ordered the bombing of Baghdad.

$25 a barrel anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Crude_oil_price_WTI_EIA_since_2000.svg&page=1

Of course there's the argument that the invasion was to force up the price of oil to benefit a few. I can't believe that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SushiSake3Oct. 23, 2012 - 04:48PM JST

Or would you rather have 11 USN carrier battle fleets roaming the world's oceans - at incredible cost to the taxpayer - to basically not do much at all?

1) Most aren't roaming anywhere, just sidelined like everything else.

2) A carrier itself is pretty cheap after factoring fuel costs. A normal (Wasp class or similar ) ship will burn through 30000 gallons of fuel a day without including heli/landing craft/aircraft fuel expenses. That comes out to 700 barrels of oil a day, or about 70000 dollars a day. Over the 50 year life of an aircraft carrier (USS Enterprise, CVN-65 not starship or cv-6, hit 50 last november) that can be over a billion dollars in savings (more practically about half that including repair times , etc). Cutting the fleet of normal ships by half and using CVN classification ships could save taxpayers trillions by the time they retire (assuming gas prices increase as they have in the last 20 years)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Good point.

A key problem is American conservatives have never allowed themselves to break free from the past.

Many or them still subscribe to Bronze Age camel herders' views on religion, to bone-headed one-size-fits-all ideas about gay marriage and abortion, and to unthinking hypocritical beliefs that boggle belief.

But that's precisely what defines the modern American conservative.

When they talk about the future, it's always rooted in the past. 

But we don't live in the past.

This is the 21st century.

Conservatives just don't get it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Oh please, they're politicians, put that victim card away.

I have no idea about this meme of some sort of victim card. As far Obama goes, even he regrets his actions that day.

"I'll go ahead and say it – I think that I was not aware when I gave that speech that Jack Ryan was going to be sitting right there," the president told Woodward according to audio transcripts of their conversations, provided to ABC News.

"And so I did feel, in retrospect, had I known – we literally didn't know he was going to be there until – or I didn't know, until I arrived. I might have modified some of it so that we would leave more negotiations open, because I do think that they felt like we were trying to embarrass him," Obama continued. "We made a mistake."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-bob-woodward-mistake-dress-paul-ryan-face/story?id=17171273#.UIWkuoavi3c

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Laguna

Love that LA Times heading!

I think Mitt believes that he can fool all the people all the time..... But he still hasn't given the details he promised. Asking the moderator to "Go check the website" isn't a very good response to where all the GOP's funding is coming from for his planned spending bill!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"I have no idea about this meme of some sort of victim card."

You might want to re-read your post that suggests he was invited with the intention of having his plan shot to bits.

And besides, Paul Ryan isn't the victim here. Mitt Romney is.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@smith

Well, glad you can admit that Romney cannot answer questions given to him. No surprise really, given that he cannot give any details about his 'policies'. It's interesting that you seem to take pride in a candidate who cannot think, cannot plan, cannot answer, and cannot debate, obviously. But the GOP and its supporters never did display a lot of common sense.

I never admitted to no such thing. The point that you and other liberals are missing is that Obama doesn't know anything about the ME or ME issues and it has been proven time and time again that he doesn't have a clue about foreign policy.

"first part of your statement: as I said, he doesn't need to let Obama define him."

The man cannot even define himself except to change the definition the next day when pandering to a different audience. Point that out and he develops Romnesia, which you seem to think is 'genius' and the requirements of a good president.

Romney most definitely has defined himself that he is better suited for the presidency, that you and other liberals didn't see it means, you need to make an appointment with your audiologist.

"Second part: I ask myself that same question about Obama every single day. :-)"

Save that Obama's doing it, where Romney could not possibly, as has been evidenced for some time now. Stop trying to deflect and admit it already.

I will admit that Obama is witty as well as pompous, snide and rude. I could go on all day, but we would be here for a week.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Here's an interesting poll for you Bass:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

Obviously it has no effect in the elections, but I find it highly interesting that Pakistan is the one and only nation on the chart that favours a president Romney.

I guess the drone strikes are pissing them off.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Whoops I read it wrong only looking at the bottom chart, but still interesting world opinion!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You might want to re-read your post that suggests he was invited with the intention of having his plan shot to bits.

That's exactly what happened. he thought he was invited as part of a reach-out and a compromise by Obama to work for a bi-partisan compromise:

When Ryan got his invite, Woodward reports, he thought it was an effort by Obama to extend an olive branch to leaders of the new Republican House majority and "triangulate" a deficit solution, Bill Clinton-style.

Ryan thought it was a planned attack, and he was incensed. Ryan rushed out of the room even as Gene Sperling, a top Obama economic aide, tried to stop him to explain that the speech "wasn't a setup," Woodward writes.

"I can't believe you poisoned the well like that," Ryan told him.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/09/obama-regrets-attack-on-jack-ryan-really-paul/1#.UIWv94avi3c

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I envision the following scenario:

Obama loses the popular vote by like 47% to 53%, but wins the Electoral College vote, and near the end of Obama's second term amid the continued decline of the United States' economy and the worsening of the U.S. government's financial situation, massive demonstrations to get rid of the Electoral College system in favor of direct popular vote commence. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about the continued decline of America, but I'm afraid I'm not wrong.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

massive demonstrations to get rid of the Electoral College system in favor of direct popular vote commence.

That would have been 16 years too late, Serrano.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If I were American, I would be votaing against Obama. He has been a disaster for that country, and is taking the once great USA on a course of destruction. Whhile at college, it is rumoured he was a Marxist. He certaily is no lover of America and its values. I am amazed that so many Americans still support this man. They shouod boot him out next month. Romney is a Mormon, amd not that great, but still 100% better than Obama. I miss President Bush. He was a gentleman and a patriot. He also pointed out the oncoming financial crisis in 2001, but the rhen Democratically- comtrolled Congress ignired him and made fun of him. For the sake of America and the world, please vote out Obama.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Sail,

Put that card away man. Not only has this discussion got zip to do with the Ryan plan (and why you felt the need to bring this up I actually have no idea), but your two threads contradict each other, and the Ryan plan has been criticized for being exactly what it is. It even fails the Fox "news" fact-checker, and that says it all:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-budget-plan-doesnt-actually-slash-budget/

Romney made a couple of decent points and come-backs, but that's it. Whining he was being attacked for his past position(s) further denotes how out of his depth he is.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Laguna

"I wanna toilet made out of solid gold..." is the line. I use it a lot with the wife.

Anyhoos,

Either way you say it, that is where the Republicans are today. Wanting a toilet made of solid gold, getting a toilet made of solid gold, and seeing there toilet made of solid gold for what it is:

A very expensive tool full of piss and crap.

AKA Romney.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Man oh MAN did romney look like a PUTZ! He is looking & sounding more like the shrub, he was totaly out of his league in the 3rd debate, hell he wud have done better to have simply not shown up.

That so many yanks back this idiot is truly astounding!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The last four years in America has been miserable. All of that is squarely on the shoulders of Obama, and no amounts of debate will erase it. Now we Americans see a new direction. Our spirit and imagination is suddenly fired up, our confidence is coming back, our pride is surging once again. Our only obstacle is The Empty Chair currently taking up space in the White House standing in our way. But that will change come Nov. 6 when "The One" is sent packing.

RR

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Voting for George Bush twice didn't work out too well for you either, did it Ramen?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronised and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for? Aside from the horses and bayonets moment, this was essentially a debate without incident. Part of the fault was the format. It’s interesting to note that Romney won the first debate while standing up and Obama did better in the second when walking around. But when both men were forced to sit for 90 minutes, the energy was inevitably reduced and neither broke through the fourth wall convincingly. Romney had a slight edge because he didn’t use his hands so much: Obama blew his closing statements by developing ultra-energetic conjurer’s hands (“Look at the hands, not at the cards, look at the hands…”)

But the bigger problem was that they agreed on the essentials, which were all about foreign policy. Romney refused to tackle Obama directly on Libya and Fast and Furious seems to have been forgotten by the GOP. In everything else, Obama has become so homicidally neoconservative and Romney so desperately peaceful that they’ve met in the middle on most issues. Both would defend Israel in the event of an attack, both want out of Afghanistan in 2014 and neither would let Iran get the bomb. If you want a real debate on foreign policy, you’re just going to have to wait until Rand Paul gets the nomination in 2020. At times this felt almost as boring as that Gingrich v Huntsman debate that I and about 4 other people watched during the primaries. Romney tried his darnedest to bring everything back to the economy and Obama seemed to say in every answer, “So what we need to do in the Middle East is talk more about how rubbish my opponent is.” It’s almost lucky that Obama isn’t running unopposed in this election because then he’d have nothing to run on at all.

Where a disagreement did exist was on the question of leadership; Romney wants to be proactive and Obama pledges to remain reactive. Nevertheless, both seem committed to nation building overseas – with Obama throwing in the caveat that he’d like to do some nation building at home, too. The real difference was in style. In his closing statement – after Obama was done making the Ace of Spades disappear – Romney channelled Reagan by looking straight into the camera and asserting his faith in America. It was empty, sugary stuff that will make liberals sick. But it was infinitely preferable to Obama’s constant, nasty attacks. Sometimes in life, the nice guys do win.

We also have to judge this debate as part of the narrative arc of this season. Romney won the first debate by a mile. Because Romney’s win was so decisive, it sparked an image change: Americans started to think of him as presidential material. That’s why Obama winning the second debate by an inch made little impact – people were watching Romney not to see him land punches but to see how well he could take them. He won the third debate because, by the end of the night, his and Obama’s positions in the narrative arc had switched. Romney now looks like the President and Obama looks like the challenger.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

BTW Obama lost Virginia lastnight....

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Democrats base facts on their beliefs. Conservatives base their beliefs on facts.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

And the independents base their beliefs on factual actions done by Republicans and Democrats in office.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@johnny, actually the truth is opposite.

That's why Romney earned his names- Romnesia and Mr. Flip-flop.

Please compare what he used to stand for while he was a governor of MA, Romeny-a month ago, Romney-a week ago and Romney of the last debate. Thanks.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The title of this article reveals that it was written by a Democratic Party member. Totally one-sided, like most of the American media these days. Under Obama, America has become more and more unfree. George Bush is blamed for everything bad. In actual fact, George Bush first warned of the danger of imminent financial collapse as far back as 2001, and was ridiculed for that by the Democrats. The sad fact is that under the Obama Dicatorship (more Executive orders in his 4 years than under all the American Presidents before him put together, most of which give him extra totalitarian powers) the facts about George Bush warning of economic collapse in 2011 have been censored from the Intenet, notably YouTube, within the US Borders. We can still access them through Canada, though. The truth is out there, and mo and more people are waking upmto the fact that The Great Oneis maybe not so gat after all. Romney may not be perfect, but at least he loves his country, unlike Obama.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

There couldn't have been a more stark contrast between the two presidential candidates in the debate last night.

Mr. Romney was calm and steady, well informed and knowledgeable of the issues. Obama was snarky, condescending, disrespectful and at times looking into the audience like he was searching for Candy Crowley to help bail him out.

Even Obama knows his days are numbered. His first comment to the news media after the debate was, "No matter how this turn out, Michelle and I will be fine." Coming from a sitting president, that sounded an awful like a concession speech.

RR

-1 ( +4 / -6 )

Obama didn't do bad but he didn't "savage" Romney in the least. Romney did exactly what he set out to do. Defend himself from the Obama line of crap that he was a war monger. Thus assuring women he was an okay guy that wouldn't invade first and ask questions later. Romney did very well, looked very presidential and won the "image" contest which for the voters left is what matters as they are a bunch of simpletons. This article shows the liberal bias of JT and the title should be changed at minimum and article should be more balanced. Shame on JT. Romney will win this election and the media is trying everything it can to turn it around.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

In last night's debate Obama described what he, uh, promises to do during his second term of office:

“Making education and training a national priority; building on our manufacturing boom; boosting American-made energy; reducing the deficits responsibly by cutting where we can, and asking the wealthy to pay a little more. And ending the war in Afghanistan, so we can do some nation-building here at home.”

So, two weeks before the election he finally presents his plan for a second term? But, but. but ... Obama has had 4 years to do all that. Heh, it must not have been very high on his priority list. And now he wants us voters to believe he will do these things. Not sure where he's going to find the time after playing his rounds of golf, going on vacations, flying around the country to fundraisers, appearing on TV variety shows and hosting weekly celeb parties in the White House all on the taxpayer's tab. Thanks, but I'll vote for the other guy.

RR

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Why is this article so obnoxiously biased?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

To clarify my previous comment, the article just doesn't seem in line with:

CNN’s poll found Obama beat Romney to 48 to 40%.

I have no problem with JT calling a spade a spade, but this article just sounds like it was written by a pundit.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Romeo:

The moderator saying "Obama bin Laden".

That just rolled smoothly off Scheifer's tongue - hilarious. Seriously though, I feel bad for the old guy as I am sure that he feels bad about making that mistake. After all, like the three "journalists" that preceded him, Scheifer is a Liberal. That said, I think that he and Jim Leher did the best job during the debates.

Anyway - another slanted pro-Obama article from AFP. Romney looked presidential while Obama was nit picky and often personalizing his arguments against his opponent. Obama diminished his stature to a degree in the debate whereas Romney stayed above the fray.

It was obvious that Obama's plan was to try to make Romney out as some wild-eyed cowboy. It is funny to see how Obama and his minions have gone around making up an image of Romney trying to make him out to be some horrible person and then act all shocked when in the debates they find out that he isn't the terrible person that Obama has tried to make him out to be. Oh well, hundreds of millions of dollars in attack ads down the drain.

Just two weeks until the election and Romney retains the momentum. Should be an exciting finish.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@johnnybravo:

BTW Obama lost Virginia lastnight....

I also thought he made a mistake attacking military and the Navy's shrinking fleet. Other than the fact that Virginia has a huge Naval presence, Obama made a later argument in the debate stating that America is turning it's focus to the Pacific. Well, how is America supposed to be a Pacific power with the smallest Navy in 100 years? I get the feeling he didn't think that one through.

Romney just wants to maintain military spending at 4% of gdp. Defense is the Federal governments number #1 priority. 4% isn't too much to spend on defense.

"We have these ships that go underwater". Ahhh yeah - submarines go under water Mr. President. Ha!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan).

Thing is, for most people, when you use an example, say horses and bayonets, to illustrate how obsolete technologies are reduced in number by being replaced with modern technologies, it really doesn't impress anyone when others earnestly shout "Yes, they do!" No one said they the military didn't still use horses and bayonets, but even if they had said it, it still would not be the actual point of the statement.

He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?

Between a guy who looks like something and a guy who is trained at law? Go for the skill set; looks aren't as important as people think.

It’s interesting to note that Romney won the first debate while standing up and Obama did better in the second when walking around. But when both men were forced to sit for 90 minutes, the energy was inevitably reduced and neither broke through the fourth wall convincingly.

Good thing you aren't a presidential advisor. All of them figured it out after the first debate.

"Excuse me, sir? The sitting down thing? Not you. You are the young, dynamic, president, not the old, flabby, white guy. Doesn't look natural. Just be yourself."

Where a disagreement did exist was on the question of leadership; Romney wants to be proactive and Obama pledges to remain reactive. Nevertheless, both seem committed to nation building overseas – with Obama throwing in the caveat that he’d like to do some nation building at home, too. The real difference was in style.

For some of use, it's style over substance. For others, it isn't. Personally, I like the idea that we aren't going to be "proactive" outside of our nation for awhile. So do, apparently, a lot of people outside the US. Like it or not, Foreign Policy improved when other countries saw that we someone with a bit of style in the office, instead of the stereotypical American good ol' boy.

Romney now looks like the President and Obama looks like the challenger.

In all honesty, it really does sound like sour grapes. I mean, at this point, even trying to throw in a few lines about the issues, your main gripe, repeated several times throughout your comment, is that you like your presidents sitting down instead of moving. "Can't trust a mover." is right up there with political analysis as my mother's "Don't like his eyes."

In last night's debate Obama described what he, uh, promises to do during his second term of office:

Yes, he doesn't actually have the power to predict the future, contrary to Republican expectations.

So, two weeks before the election he finally presents his plan for a second term? But, but. but ... Obama has had 4 years to do all that. Heh, it must not have been very high on his priority list.

Reasonable people, on the other hand, would conclude that his plan was actually being worked on through the four years in office, as opposed to either being put together two weeks prior, or in a drawer somewhere from four years ago, never mind what happened between now and then.

Not sure where he's going to find the time after playing his rounds of golf, going on vacations, flying around the country to fundraisers, appearing on TV variety shows and hosting weekly celeb parties in the White House all on the taxpayer's tab. Thanks, but I'll vote for the other guy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yeah, the Republicans never play golf, go on vacations, do fundraisers, or any of that stuff, and on the rare occasions that they do, they always pay for it out of their own pockets.

I'm not even completely on Obama's side, but man, watching some of the justifications people put out is painful.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This article was a real hack job for Obama, and sounds like an Obama staff Liar wrote it. Does Japan know how quick Obama will throw them under the bus? You really can't tell how big of a liar and fraud Obama is? I guess it doesn't really matter what anyone in Japan thinks about it, but I know my sympathies for the Japanese media are non-existentant now that I see this biased reporting about our election.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@Wolfpack

I agree with you on Obama's Navy comment.

But, it's this C-in-C's "horses and bayonets" observation that was really strange. U.S. ground forces (Army, and Marines) are still issued bayonets. He should know that. As for horses, Apparently, when Obama's state funeral day finally comes, he's written into his will that no caison (soldiers riding on horseback) will be accompanying him to his final resting place.

RR

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The NY Times compared Romney's closing statements to a beauty queen's wish for "world peace".

The NYT is a shadow of its former self. At one time this left-leaning newspaper managed to keep its political leanings in check, with its journalism. Now, all pretense is gone, and so is the credibility of this rag:

http://nation.foxnews.com/ny-times/2012/10/21/ny-times-caught-editing-story-iran-nuclear-negotiations-after-white-house-denial

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Mad

Voting for Obama twice won't work out too well for the world either!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

That's why Romney earned his names- Romnesia and Mr. Flip-flop.

Well, ALL politicians flip flop, I can give you a dozen Obama flips and flops, so that means nothing, Guantanamo is still open that's one BIG major flip flop that he promised to his fellow Democrats.

Please compare what he used to stand for while he was a governor of MA, Romeny-a month ago, Romney-a week ago and Romney of the last debate. Thanks.

Same can be said for Obama, even more so.

My favorite line from Chuck Todd on Mega Socialist National Barack Channel last night said:

"Obama tried to draw Romney into arguments and that's what you do when you are losing"

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It's hard to believe, but Japan Today is more biased in its reporting of the U.S. Presidential campaign/debates than even the far left U.S. media. If Romney is losing these debates, then why is he getting bumps in the polls. Obama spends most of his time trying to tell us not to believe what we saw with our own eyes or heard with our own ears over the past 4 years. The people fooled the first time around are not buying Obama's lies this time.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Folks I dont see any biasis Romney was sincerely utterly trounced on Monday, the shamelessly crawled closer to centre often AGREEING with Obama.........................THE GUY IS A LIEING SLIMEBALL, flipflops constantly, has almost NO SUBSTANCE on any issue, its the Oh I was a biznesssmaaaan, truuuust me!

Romney is flat out terrible, man he cud be even worse than the shrub, hopefully we will never know!

And to all those who say the last 4yrs were crap............open your eyes Obama saved the US from plunging over the cliff, the US cud very well have been in MUCH MUCH more serious trouble & dragged the rest of the world with it, Obama SAVED the US & is now clawing back, imo he has done a DaMNED GOOD JOB, not perfect but good, especially when the republicans just went against everything just for spite.

Only time will tell if enough Yanks can see the obvious, clearly there are many who can not, pretty stupifying if you ask me!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Just two weeks until the election and Romney retains the momentum. Should be an exciting finish.

All Romney has managed to do in the debates is undo some of the horrible self-inflicted injuries of the past few months so that he's just about level with Obama in the polls. Go on about how presidential he looked all you like. If he'd really done a good job then not even the left-leaning elements of the media would try to claim that Obama had won.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Anyone who works 30 hours per week. Is now full time under Obamacare..

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-mandate-anyone-who-works-30-hour-week-now-full-time

“The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. (Scroll down to section 4, paragraph A.)

A little-known section in the Obamacare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the Obamacare rule that says businesses with 50 or more workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Welcome to the new 29 hour work week lol...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed,” he said, to laughter from the audience.

To add to what others have said on this issue, Marines still carry bayonets in the field, and all must complete training with the hand-to-hand combat staple. The Army’s infantrymen also have long used bayonets, though that branch has scaled back on bayonet drills in recent years. Although the last U.S. bayonet charge was in Korea in 1951, a British soldier was recently honored for leading a bayonet charge against the Taliban in 2011 in Afghanistan. Every Marine receives bayonet training in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) and on the Bayonet Assault Course in Recruit Training.”

Looks like the Obama's debate prepers didn't really have any military experience when they coached him to use that line. Just like the Dems had pictures of Russian warships at their convention when they were supposedly honoring the military.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

the last U.S. bayonet charge was in Korea in 1951

Which renders the rest of your post pretty much redundant.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Which renders the rest of your post pretty much redundant.

@ lucabrasi: I left out some more items in my post because I wanted to keep it in the line of the comments from the debate. But, if you have been around any military personnel, you will see from my post that in hand to hand combat, they still use bayonet training. You may not like this, but go to the article on Fox News and you can get a better understanding of how the bayonet is still being used, especially by Special Forces, since a slash to the neck doesn't make a sound.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Basic English vocab lesson:

Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed,” he said, to laughter from the audience.

"We also have fewer" does not translate to "We have none."

It's sad enough that Romney supporters try to ignore that the point is modern technology means fewer units.

It's even sadder when they try so hard to make it sound like the actual use of bayonets and horses in the modern military is of any significance whatsoever, in or out of the debate (seriously, who gives a damn?).

But the blatantly transparent sour grapes reaction is downright laughable when they spend so much time pointing it out their use, when Obama never actually said that they gone.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Alphaape

Fair enough. Point taken : )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting: Mr. Romney didn't seem to be "savaged" by anyone, least of all the president. I listened to the debates, and quite honestly, Mr. Obama seemed desperate in his agressiveness, interruptions, and patently false assertions and statements, not to mention his condescension. Seemed like he was trying to win the zinger count instead of the debate (in particular) or the election (in general).

Mr. Romney, on the otherh and, seemed far more likeable, concerned with the nation as a whole, and pretty much held his own against the president yet again.

No "Savaging" done by anyone here, except the desperatation left, who is likely seeing their man go down to defeat in two weeks...

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

JLovelace, sadly you just proved my observation at how many simply cannot see the obvious

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

GW -- Ummmmm....apparently, I'm not alone in this view. CNN, CBS, and other polls form the mainstream media show the debate didn't change anyone's mind on how to vote, and that Romney, for the third straight debate, had a better grasp and plan concerning the economy than did Mr. Obama. Rassmussen and Gallup are also reporting today in the US that Mr. Romney's numbers are up, and going higher. How's that, again, for the obvious?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cabadajeOct. 24, 2012 - 11:05AM JST

Actually, again the President seems to be wrong again, at least concerning bayonets: some Marine and Army friends of mine have stated that they were issued bayonets, and another source confirmed that the USMC has recently placed an order for 120K new bayonets to replace existing ones. Seems like he was wrong, the president was, again on numbers....

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"We also have fewer" does not translate to "We have none."

@ cabadaje: Most people understand the differenece between fewer and none, but the point Obama was trying to make I believe was that contrary to Romney's belief, the number of ships we have now are adequate, just like the fact that we don't use bayonets as much today. Confusing the fact that the Navy has to do more with less, but the comparison of the two is really not appropriate. For the record, horses and donkeys are still being used by the military in Afghanistan, since access to some of the more remote regions don't have roads and caravan and pack animal use is still being used.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Actually, again the President seems to be wrong again, at least concerning bayonets: some Marine and Army friends of mine have stated that they were issued bayonets,

Again, no one cares. Whether or not horses and bayonets are still used was not the point. The point is that obsolete technology is used less than modern technology. I can count on the fingers of one hand the marines I know who take their bayonet into the field with them (though I have heard some units do actually carry them). With their lack of regularity, the ending of bayonet training over two years ago in the Army, and compared to the 3,000,000+ regular soldiers since the Civil War that did actually carry them regularly and use them in combat, the horse has been bayonetted, whipped, and buried. You are not doing your side any favors by keeping it in the public mind.

Most people understand the differenece between fewer and none, but the point Obama was trying to make I believe was that contrary to Romney's belief, the number of ships we have now are adequate, just like the fact that we don't use bayonets as much today.

YES! Exactly! That is what we should be discussing; not this nonsense about how much bayonets are used.

Confusing the fact that the Navy has to do more with less, but the comparison of the two is really not appropriate.

Agreed, this was a rather sly move by Obama. He is a very persuasive speaker when given free rein. Romney made it kind of easy for him by playing the Straight Man.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Jason Lovelace

I love the way you source right winged blogs as your information source. I guess if they say so, it must be true...except they're completely wrong and so are you.

No "Savaging" done by anyone here, except the desperatation left, who is likely seeing their man go down to defeat in two weeks...

Conservative pundits will beg to differ with you:

David Limbaugh: "Why do these advisers tell Mitt not to go for the jugular? Why?"

In other words, even conservative pundits agree that Romney was decimated tonight.

Apparently, I'm not alone in this view. CNN, CBS, and other polls form the mainstream media show the debate didn't change anyone's mind on how to vote,

Jason, you really shouldn't make up things. I know its tough when you are on the wrong side of facts, but facts are stubborn things. Every single CBS poll favored Obama except the one on China. People felt that the both Romney and Obama would handle China equally well.

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

0 ( +3 / -3 )

When are all the all of YOU gonna figure out that running for the office of US President has turned into an auction where the office goes to the highest bidder. OVER a TRILLION dollars is being spent on this election. HOW THE HECK CAN ANYONE AFFORD THAT!? Follow the money... that'll tell you who's behind all of this.

In 2007 the Rockefeller group meged with the Rothschild's group (second and third richest families in all history) in the US and the financial collapse happened shortly thereafter in 2008; as a result the FED got new powers and bought AIG, the world's largest insurance company for pennies on the dollar in a secret deal. Who owns the FED? It isn't a US government institution, but a privately held company that NO ONE KNOWS WHO OWNS IT, and they have the right to print US currency and earn interest off of it and they handled all of the stimulus money for a cut of the action. Where did all of that money GO? Why isn't anyone in the news asking that?

Why don't the smart mouthed pundits on the left and the Holy Roller pundits on the right stop attacking each other and start asking the real questions and finding out WHO the real bad guys are? Obama is a liar and Romney is a wimp, so WHAT? Find out who backs them and how they can afford to put that much money into this campaign in these economic hard times!! Stop regurgitating talking points and think for yourselves people! LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE FOR ONCE!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Basroil,

Worse yet, the "minicarriers" like LHD, LPH, LHA have practically disappeared, which relegate the Marines to less useful single or dual helicopter (at a reasonable time) ships. Hell, as of 2009 there are only 11 supercarriers around, maybe 15-16 if you include LHA, and just two in production GRFord Class ships (which won't be featuring a lot of the weapons and systems that were originally planned) that will only replace existing ones.

Actually, there are 10 LHAs and LHDs in USN Service. The large America Class LHAs will join starting from 2013 - though the need to have more Landing Craft carrying ships will result in these new ships being redesigned to accommodate them.

Instead, Obama forced the Pentagon to buy more tanks, which they have indeed repeatedly stated they do not need.

Actually, it's not about what the Army needs now - it's what they need down the line. There is only one tank assembly line in the US, and the Obama administration had a choice: mothball it now, and pay 1.6 Billion to get it up an running again in 2 years time, or produce tanks at a low rate - costing only 1.4 Billion.

Obama is right about the fact that the modern US military will rely on aircraft carriers and subs more than ever (one reason for limited development of other ships including the cancellation of CG(X) by obama himself), but carriers neither fight alone nor do they have enough speed to cover the distances needed without more than doubling the number.

CG(X) was cancelled for the reason that the ship was seen of limited utility beyond Ballistic Missile Defense, which was a key requirement. The Ship was derived from the DD(X) Zumwalt Class, which was almost cancelled by the Bush Administration in 2008.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

AlphaapeOct. 23, 2012 - 02:06PM JST

Those ships are counted in the total ship totals. And as a matter of fact, we are down to 10 carriers and will fall below that when the Enterprise is decommissioned. Ask the guys that are now doing 9-10 month deployments because the numbers of carrier strike groups is smaller than before. When the President sends one someplace, another has to be ready to fill in other commitments.

Here are the last few Carrier Strike Groups that were cancelled:

Carrier Strike Group 6 - deactivated April 2007, GWB Presidency. Carrier Strike Group 15 - disestablished March 2005, GWB Presidency.

So Obama, attempting to make a "zinger" misspoke and those who actually know how the Navy operates can see through it.

Really? USS Gerald L. Ford joins the fleet in 2015, bringing the CVNs back up to 11.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

BTW, regarding Romneys comments on route to the sea, he was (poorly) referring to Iran's objective to set up a Shia led Muslim Caliphate (Centered around Iran, Iraq, Syria and eventually Egypt) in the Middle-east (eventually controlling all muslims). They want to have access to the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. They also want control of the Suez Canal. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will dominate the effort to be the leader of such a confederation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Carrier Strike Group 6 - deactivated April 2007, GWB Presidency. Carrier Strike Group 15 - disestablished March 2005, GWB Presidency.

@ Star-viking: You also forgot to add that CSG 6 was decommissioned along with the USS John F. Kennedy, a non-nuclear carrier and the other along with the KItty Hawk, also non nuke. They try to match the number of strike groups along with the carriers.

Really? USS Gerald L. Ford joins the fleet in 2015, bringing the CVNs back up to 11.

I understand, but not all 11 are operational. You have at least 3 that are in dry docks now, and the others are in the work up phases for deployment. Te surge of carriers to the Gulf in a show of strength to Iran made some have to move up their schedules to get there, and others had to delay coming home. End result, 9-10 month deployments.

And in any event that something happens that they need to be called up on short notice, they are back underway again. That's what Romney's oint was, we are asking the USN and other services to do more with less. Sure the platforms are more versitile than before, but they haven't managed the trick of being in two places at the same time.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why am I reminded of the worst type of doorstep salesman (or missionary, for that matter)?

Is America really so gullible as to swallow everything this 'say anything deal closer' spins at them?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It appears that the majority of posters on this site are people living in Japan, because it is clear that the majority of you are buying the liberal CNN clap trap peddled in the liberal media all over the world. On the home front here in the U.S. I can tell you that Obama has completely disillusioned so many Americans with his huge deficits, lack of respect for the Constitution and reckless use of Executive Orders. The Obama magic has completely worn off and the DNC is desperate and scrambling to find a way to turn the momentum back in their favor, but it's too late. Romney is going to be the 45th president of the United States of America.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Perhaps this article should be "Obama Fails to Protect Americans From Savages in Libya, Romney Says"??

Romney had a chance to pin Obama to the wall, but chose not to.

The fact is that Obama's administration blamed the attack on the a video as a way of distracting the American people from the truth - that Obama and his team failed to help Ambassador Stevens and the others. What really ticked me off was the fact that Obama and Secretary of State Clinton reserved words like "despicable", "disgusting" and "deplorable" to describe the video rather than the barbaric murder of American citizens.

Is this really leadership?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As with so much of the hatred directed toward Obama by the right, it is based in racism. Not reality.

AP reports based on survey data that nearly 80 percent of republicans explicitly admit to being racist against blacks. Racism is going up in the USA with Obama being President, not going down. The republicans like to claim that there is no racism in the USA due to Obama being elected but it was not white tea party republicans who made Obama win in 2008 and they will not do so this year.

Really, the birther movement, the take American back, this latest Libyan nonsense is all based in racism. The republicans will not admit it but that is the fact. They could hate Obama cause he is so much smarter than republicans, like they hated Clinton, but since Obama is black he is hated for that first and foremost by most republicans.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/27/poll-black-prejudice-america/1662067/

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Zurch

Thanks for the link.

According to the article, Rmoney supporter are over 90% white. Interesting stat, doncha think...?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

AlphaapeOct. 25, 2012 - 01:06AM JST

@ Star-viking: You also forgot to add that CSG 6 was decommissioned along with the USS John F. Kennedy, a non-nuclear carrier and the other along with the KItty Hawk, also non nuke. They try to match the number of strike groups along with the carriers.

Really? I thought they were decommissioned with the Forrestal?Ref: http://www.seaforces.org/usnair/CVW/Carrier-Air-Wing-6.htm

"Really? USS Gerald L. Ford joins the fleet in 2015, bringing the CVNs back up to 11."

I understand, but not all 11 are operational. You have at least 3 that are in dry docks now, and the others are in the work up phases for deployment. Te surge of carriers to the Gulf in a show of strength to Iran made some have to move up their schedules to get there, and others had to delay coming home. End result, 9-10 month deployments.

True, I think there's a general rule that you need 3 of any one navy ship to almost guarantee one in service - 4 to be sure - which is why the Royal Navy has 4 Ballistic Missile Subs.

And in any event that something happens that they need to be called up on short notice, they are back underway again. That's what Romney's oint was, we are asking the USN and other services to do more with less. Sure the platforms are more versitile than before, but they haven't managed the trick of being in two places at the same time.

I think it's more complex than Romney says. The new Ford-class carriers have a lot more design lessons built in, learnt from the Big E and the Nimitzes - they'll probably have better availability - once the initial design problems get ironed out (they are always with any engineering project).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JT Danman- and 98% of blacks voted for Barack Obama rather than McCain. And that's not racist?

What's your point. Obama is a terrible president and a worse leader. Why would anyone support him?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Due to Obama's "leadership", our enemies fear us less while our allies wonder who their friends are and Israel is wondering what will happen when that nut job in Iran announces he has nuclear weapons aimed at their country. Just as Dewey had to hold back during WWII during his contest with FDR, Romney is aware that the Libyan affair is still current. People in those other countries are probably reconsidering their status after we failed to protect our own Ambassador and his staff.

Energy and foreign policy are as closely joined as money and politics. When asked direct questions about that topic by Romney, Obama lied repeatedly. This also happened during the conversation about Fast & Furious, another foreign relations disaster that cost both American and Mexican lives. Again, Obama lied several times.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@yokohamarider:

On the home front here in the U.S. I can tell you that Obama has completely disillusioned so many Americans...

That's not surprising, actually. Most Americans tend to only care about themselves, and only give lip service to the idea of living peacefully with the rest of the world.

Romney had a chance to pin Obama to the wall, but chose not to.

Or was unable to.

@zurcronium

Racism is going up in the USA with Obama being President, not going down.

Rather, it is being brought into the light. I do agree that racism, subconscious or otherwise, does play a role, however I also submit that one of the reasons some do not like Obama is because he doesn't really go out of his way to let them live in their comfortable world where they get to ignore things they don't like.

@yokohamarider:

JT Danman- and 98% of blacks voted for Barack Obama rather than McCain. And that's not racist?

A restaurant has a white manager who actively shuns any black patrons. He is removed and a black manager is put in who doesn't distinguish too much between races. More black customers begin to use the restaurant. Racism?

Sour Grapes:

What's your point. Obama is a terrible president and a worse leader. Why would anyone support him?

Due to Obama's "leadership", our enemies fear us less while our allies wonder who their friends are...

People in those other countries are probably reconsidering their status...

Wiki: "The Fox and the Grapes" is one of the traditional Aesop's fables and can be held to illustrate the concept of cognitive dissonance. In this view, the premise of the fox that covets inaccessible grapes is taken to stand for a person who attempts to hold incompatible ideas simultaneously. In that case, the disdain the fox expresses for the grapes at the conclusion to the fable serves at least to diminish the dissonance even if the behaviour in fact remains irrational.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@cabadaje

That's not surprising, actually. Most Americans tend to only care about themselves, and only give lip service to the idea of >living peacefully with the rest of the world.

Oh, "most Americans" according to what survey? I love how you you magically have the pulse of "most Americans" when you don't live here. Impressive!

Or was unable to

Romney could have nailed Obama on the Benghazi attack, but chose to not engage in "gotcha" tactics such as those employed by Obama.

A restaurant has a white manager who actively shuns any black patrons. He is removed and a black manager is put in who doesn't distinguish too much between races. More black customers begin to use the restaurant. Racism?

What a silly metaphor. Obama has, from the start of his Presidency, divided Americans along lines of race. Look at he and Eric Holder's refusal to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia. In the case of Professor Gates at Harvard, Obama instinctively sides with the black man vs the white cop, saying "I don't know all the facts, but it appears that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly." Then, in the case of the teen shot in Florida (Trayvon Martin), Obama makes the stupid comment "if I had a son, he's look like Trayvon." HUH?!?! Obama's AG Holder refers to blacks as "my people", etc. etc.

Obama was mentored by his biological father Frank Marshal Davis in anti-colonial, anti-white thinking. Now, it's all coming out. He can't help it. It's who he is.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Oh, "most Americans" according to what survey?

The one where they ask foreigners about their general opinion regarding Americans. Most Americans don't tend to care about those surveys.

I love how you you magically have the pulse of "most Americans" when you don't live here. Impressive!

Not really. The world is a lot smaller and more interconnected than you imagine. I don't even have to be a marketing researcher to notice obvious trends like this one.

Romney could have nailed Obama on the Benghazi attack, but chose to not engage in "gotcha" tactics such as those employed by Obama.

I love how you you magically have the pulse of what the Republicans could do if they really wanted to win. Guess they don't though, huh?

What a silly metaphor.

In that it points out the silliness of your comparison, I agree.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Israel is wondering what will happen when that nut job in Iran announces he has nuclear weapons aimed at their country.

Yeah, so what? Would you rather the US has an ally that can stand tall and look after itself so that it keeps Iran in check for you, or one that you keep having to spend time and money on propping up and bailing out of trouble?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Savages"? No, really, savages? When I first read the headline, I thought it was satire. Libya, the ME just laughing at us as one terrorist group after another organizes their next deadly plot, blow up a helicopter with heroes of Seal Team VI, our allies totally baffled by the unpredictability and inevitably contradictory statements that BHO and Hillary make, all this and more. Obama came to a gunfight with a spoon. I must not have been watching the same debate the JT watched. I saw a kid just dying to pick a fight with his opponent, who kept on topic and had his information clear enough to make sense and stay consistent.

Now, of course, Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of those who overlook the obvious. Nothing's his fault, and as long as he says so, it is the case. Don't look at the man behind the curtain. Just believe the words that come out of his mouth. JT, a little objective reporting is reasonable, but printing as fact something that barely merits the opinion column is just unprofessional.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites