Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

2012 debates


TheNewTeddy

Recommended Posts

Then the case is closed. Romney was right in that it was not known that it was an actual terrorist attack for certain, and so no one said it was, but, he wasn't right in that Obama labelled it an act of terror, an attack on the United States that would have a decisive response, immediately after.

I don't think this quite covers it.

The charge is that the administration has waffled, and profoundly, on the matter of the attack. It was a terror attack, it wasn't, we don't know, etc, with multiple officials giving varying and even contradictory remarks.

Now, the justification for this has been either a) justifiable confusion or b)caution until the facts were in.

The critique has been that the administration made a lethal security error, and are covering their behinds.

Personally, I can't say for sure that the critique is true. But I strongly suspect it is.

At any rate, I don't believe this sort of thing affects elections at all.

Which begs some serious questions, I think. Not just about the Democrats, but about the reality show called "campaign politics" itself.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 596
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think this quite covers it.

The charge is that the administration has waffled, and profoundly, on the matter of the attack. It was a terror attack, it wasn't, we don't know, etc, with multiple officials giving varying and even contradictory remarks.

Now, the justification for this has been either a) justifiable confusion or b)caution until the facts were in.

The critique has been that the administration made a lethal security error, and are covering their behinds.

Personally, I can't say for sure that the critique is true. But I strongly suspect it is.

At any rate, I don't believe this sort of thing affects elections at all.

Which begs some serious questions, I think. Not just about the Democrats, but about the reality show called "campaign politics" itself.

What facts needed to be known that weren't immediately known in order to characterise the attack as terrorism? There was even a report on September 10 by Nic Robertson of CNN that there was a demonstration to take place in front of the embassy in Cairo the following day to demand the release of the so-called "blind sheikh", Omar Abdul Rahman. It was also being coordinated with other Muslim/Islamist groups in other cities with an American diplomatic presence. This report was immediately buried when CNN made the decision to carry water for Obama until the lie could no longer be supported. Kudos to Anderson Cooper for actually paying some attention to this story and exposing deception from the Obama administration.

More importantly, the date is not a coincidence How could any person be so ridiculous as the think that an obscure YouTube film trailer that had been released months (or years?) earlier was at the core of an attack on this calendar date involving mortars, RPGs, and automatic rifles? The administration instantly knew, as all sensible people did, that this attack was terrorism. The subsequent obfuscation was and continues to be a deliberate attempt to shield Obama's faux reputation as someone who is serious about security. Moreover, Obama's political decision to maintain a "low profile" in Benghazi in order to further his policy of appeasement is directly responsible for the denial of requests for necessary security at the Benghazi consulate. Meanwhile, Valerie Jarret enjoys a full security detail.

It doesn't require a particularly astute follower of politics to see exactly what's happened, and what continues to happen.

Edited by kraychik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, another good debate. I much prefer this "Canadian-style" debate where the candidates can speak directly to one another. Usually, the incumbent ignores the challenger. (I recall the 1979 debate between Trudeau-Clark when Clark tried to engage Trudeau constantly and Trudeau didn't even bother to look at Clark except to say once, "You don't seem to be on top of your dossiers.")

This US debate had the roles reversed: Obama challenged Romney, and to my eye, this made Romney somehow "presidential". Obama's "bayonets and horses" line made me laugh out loud but at the same time, it struck me as juvenile. I wondered after if Obama threw the line for the twitter generation, as if he needs their votes. (Then again, Obama girl never bothered to vote in 2008 so maybe there are no twitter votes.)

At times, I could agree with both these guys on points; at other times, I disagreed with them. At issue really is how they present themselves and in a foreign affairs, can they speak apparently with knowledge. No one made a gaffe and Romney seems to know Middle East geography.

-----

On balance, I'd say that Romney "won" this debate. He appears to be a credible leader and knowledgeable. He's performed the Etch-A-Sketch pivot. Evidence that Romney is on the right track is that the Dems are now accusing him of being "all over the map". It's kind of late to accuse Romney of being a successful politician.

As Robert Kennedy famously said, "It's on to Chicago and let's win there.... " Obama/Romney are saying "It's on to Cincinnati... and another bus."

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On balance, I'd say that Romney "won" this debate. He appears to be a credible leader and knowledgeable. He's performed the Etch-A-Sketch pivot. Evidence that Romney is on the right track is that the Dems are now accusing him of being "all over the map". It's kind of late to accuse Romney of being a successful politician.

I basically agree with your analysis. I thought Romney threaded the needle beautifully between paying the necessary obeisance to conservatives and appearing sensible rather than bellicose on foreign policy. A lot like Reagan in the 1980 debate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping that Governor Romney would speak some French just to impress the folks in Quebec.

Actually I wish he threw in a little Spanish. Many Spanish-speakers want to be Americans. Not many French speakers have any loyalty to Canada.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama seemed very much at ease and confident, whereas Romney sometimes seemed anxious or uncertain. Not really that good of a debate for Romney, if it was being viewed in isolation.

But in the big picture, it was ok for Romney. He didn't blunder anything, he didn't come out with anything that will alarm people or think he's going to start the next war. The election is all about the economy, so really the only way tonight would have hurt Romney much would be if he was so bad that it would be impossible to imagine him representing America around the world. But he did well enough that I don't think anybody would worry about him. Romney did well enough to not hurt his election chances, and I think that was all that was required.

In terms of foreign policy issues, I don't know if the two of them actually disagreed on much tonight.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we're down the stretch. now let the money of sheldon adelson, the koch brothers and the other millions carl rove has been able to collect do their magic on the airways. i'm sure the money obama has collected from soros and the financial sector will be flooding the media as well.

these are exciting and i'm assuming anxious times for the fanboys!

turn up the rhetoric!

Edited by bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the debate on CPAC. They split the screen and showed both close up faces of contenders....so you can see their faces, the reactions they made while the other one speaks, those little blinks at just the right time when they're getting slugged.

Romney cleverly took Osama Bin Laden off the table when he congratulated Obama on that.

The first salvo was fired by Romney when he said, "Don't attack me...." Obama was visibly taken aback by that outburst.

Obama's face tightens visibly, especially around the mouth as he listens to Romney, especially when Romney speaks about Obama's leadership.

Obama tried to maintain looking confident - but you could tell, this was the debate for his life. He tried to look confident when he trie to negate what Romney was saying - but he drags on his words, and usually fights back by attacking Romney personally (his investments and business dealings with China), instead of skewing on the real issue.

Romney won. He was unshakeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney won. He was unshakeable.

You are lonely in your assessment. Romney looked passive, scared, and trying desperately to not sound stupid by basically agreeing with Obama's policies straight across the board.

The CBS News instapoll said Romney won the first debate 46 to 22.

This one, Obama won 53 to 23.

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, he was smiling and looked affable for about the first 5 mins, until Obama went on the offensive, then he looked miserable, sucking on his lips to contain his rising anger. Also, the way he cried about being attacked it's like someone forgot to tell him he was in a debate. That's kind of the point there Mitt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the debate on CPAC. They split the screen and showed both close up faces of contenders....so you can see their faces, the reactions they made while the other one speaks, those little blinks at just the right time when they're getting slugged.

Romney cleverly took Osama Bin Laden off the table when he congratulated Obama on that.

The first salvo was fired by Romney when he said, "Don't attack me...." Obama was visibly taken aback by that outburst.

Obama's face tightens visibly, especially around the mouth as he listens to Romney, especially when Romney speaks about Obama's leadership.

Obama tried to maintain looking confident - but you could tell, this was the debate for his life. He tried to look confident when he trie to negate what Romney was saying - but he drags on his words, and usually fights back by attacking Romney personally (his investments and business dealings with China), instead of skewing on the real issue.

Romney won. He was unshakeable.

Polls say Obama won this one by more then Romney won the first one so stop being a shill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else completely unsurprised that that socialists in here claiming Obama was victorious are focusing on the superficial ("Romney looked agitated!"), which is much easier to spin? Nevermind the fact that if we go on the irrelevant superficial analysis alone, Obama lost this debate just as he did the previous two, and just as Biden lost in his debate.

The primary advantage that the consensus media has been advancing for Obama is a false claim that he is superficially more appealing. He isn't. And once Obama's lost that edge, what's left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney's mistake was not being conservative enough, of course. "You can't kill your way out of this mess" was a silly line. This is a war, and it will be won through killing the enemy. What America and its allies need to be doing is killing MORE enemies, not less. Romney also tacitly accepted the leftist approach that begun with Bush and continued with Obama: "nation building". As long as America and the West commit themselves to this nonsense with long-term occupations in Muslim-majority countries with the belief that these societies can be reformed to join free civilisations, we're going to see a superpower like America entrenched in long-term conflict with a third-world trash bin like Afghanistan. Get in there, smash the enemy over an anvil until there's nothing left, and get out. Romney could've scored big points in the debate if he would have expressed that sentiment and built upon his "overwhelming force" argument from September 12. Conservatism always wins, if you actually stay true to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, real geographical ignorance that we saw from Biden, claiming that Syria is five times larger than Libya, goes ignored. Why? Because you folks wouldn't be able to know any of these things without having a computer in front of you. That's why it takes you hours to find imagined gaffes (which require deliberate misinterpretations of outright stupidity to believe, as we see above) that you're regurgitating from Slate, HuffPo, and, MMfA.

Edited by kraychik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...