Romney Loses Again.

Clearly last night Romney had no new ideas, no plans on Foreign Affairs.

As far as I could tell the only difference between his  positions and those of Obama are geographical, and not very realistic.

Despite twice locating Mali in the Mid East last night, the reality is that no 'projection of American strength' would  move that poor country from its currrent location - close to the west coast of Africa (and yes Palin-lovers, I do mean the continent, not the country) and into the Mid-East. 

Nor could any amount of bluster turn Syria into Iran's 'path to the sea'. Iran of course already has a lot of beach front property on both the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. And it has no border with Syria. Some Path.

Romney did win the style category (only) in the first debate. Obama won all three debates on substance, and the latter two on style. Not that the "balanced" media are able to admit that. At least the public could see it. For partisan "pros" like Joe Scarborough, all that matters is the facade. 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Rick]

How do you manage to squeeze to the front of the line when there’s an opportunity to miss the point? And, I’m always fascinated when the left declares victory and then expresses surprise when poll numbers drop. Clearly Romney’s strategy was to appear above the fray and allow Obama to interrupt and become petulant and condescending and display qualities that are not Presedential. Your man was enormously successful in that regard last evening. Congratulations on the victory.
Did you know that aircraft landed on aircraft carriers? Boy I didn't. And, just in case you are interested, virtually 100% of all current assult rifles are fitted wuth bayonet lugs and bayonets are still issued and used. For example, the M16 comes equipped with the M7 bayonet. You'd kind of think that the Commander in Chief would know what every foot soldier knows. But maybe he's just kind of faking it and perhaps he never really served.

I'll spare you all the Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria, Tunisia, Mali and the entire mideast ablaze stuff because nobody respects our potential to settle matters down any longer. Perhaps you could just spend a little more time over there and build on your base of personal knowledge.

They do make good lamb in that part of the world.

[bbbustard]

Obama never claimed to have served. Whereas the Romneys' belief that a year on a mission, even one to France complete with cook and houseboy, is the equivalent of military service.

But silliness about bayonets and the location of Mali aside, I never heard any new ideas from Romney. I think his exploitation of Benghazi was despicable.
And there is no reality to what he does say. He seems to basically agree with Obama that at this point sanctions are what we need in Iran. Do you really think Romney would have been able to get China and Russia to sign on to the sanctions?
"Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy who also served the Bush administration as an Iran adviser. “Whatever the domestic politics of sanctions were last fall, this administration has been exceptionally successful in garnering international support and keep the coalition (against Iran) together. That is almost unprecedented.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/10/19/3608178/have-iran-sanctions-worked-that.html#storylink=cpy

And don't you think the lamb is frequently over cooked over there?

[Rick]

I never raised the silliness about bayonets. You’ll recall that your candidate did. Please direct me to any place where Romney equated a year of missionary work anywhere to military service and I will yield to your wisdom. While on the other hand, your President has served four years as the highest ranking military official in the nation (or world) and his lack of knowledge is simply an extension of his disdain for its importance.

Your attempt to somehow attach the complete failure and breakdown in Benghazi to Romney is unfathomable. If you believe him to be the only messenger, shooting him will greatly disappoint you. We both witnessed Watergate and Benghazi makes that look like a shoplifting in a convenience store. It is a horror too great to ponder. The lies and misdirection and double speak might bring down this president with or without an election. It is one of the worst things I have witnessed in my lifetime. For once you could just “man up” and take the right side in an issue even though it is your ox that is being gored. Utterly shameless!!!
I don't believe for one moment that Romney could have persuaded Russia and China to sign on to sanctions. Sanctions have hit it's own citizens and allowed them four more years of development. That's why the sites are going to have to be taken out.

[bbbustard]

So, it seems you disagree with Romney's position on sanctions, a position that is now pretty similar to Obama's. Romney argued in the debate about the importance of the sanctions, and while saying that you support Romney, you agree that he would not have been successful in imposing them. I appreciate your honesty on that one.
The President did say that there were fewer horses and bayonets today than there were in 1916. This is a fact. You twisted his statement into implying that he said there were none. Not Fair. Obama brought it up to show that Romney's comments about the size of the navy in 1916 were sort of silly. This is true. Today's navy is larger than it was under Bush, which, while true, is also sort of a silly argument. Obama was "man" enough not to make it. Your bringing it up was an attempt to distract from Romney's failures in the debate. Somehow I don't think you believe that the indictment of Ahmadinejhad by the U.N. would make a whole lot of difference. Yet you prefer to distort statements about bayonets.
I brought up Benghazi in reference to Romney's comments a few hours after the event. I thought it wildly inappropriate to have said the tragedy was America's fault. Clearly, you disagree.
Romney did not bring up Benghazi during the debate. This indicates that either he feels that the administration was not nearly as guilty as you argue, or that Romney is pulling some sort of dishonest move - accusing someone of something, but only doing so in situations where they cannot respond. Sort of the opposite of what fair play is all about.
Perhaps what is more important in our discussion is that I stopped paying much attention to Benghazi when Romney and others on the right started to make is partisan. I have lots of disagreements with Obama. Normally, I would have read about the disaster with great interest. But when you have the instant, constant outrage of the Michelle Malkins, the Sean Hannitys and the Ann Coulters I look away. When there is no examination as to how budget cuts to consulate security may or may not have had an impact, I turn the page.
I'd be interested in your referring me to an article which would help me understand the horrendous evil of Obama's Benghazi.
The Romney family's implication about the equivalence of military and missionary service has been stated many times. If you really have a hard time finding it, I'll try to get to you on it.

[Rick]

Yes, They do overcook their lamb. I have always wanted to try the young camel but was never really in the right place at the right time. You?
The U. N.? Thugs and murderous thieves. Send the whole mess of them to Khartoum and let them not pay their parking tickets there. Benghazi was a tragedy. Just tell me you are appalled and leave it at that.

[bbbustard]

I did call Benghazi a "disaster." I have no problem calling it an appalling tragedy.
I've known quite a few people who worked for the U.N who were really quite admirable. In fact, many Israeli friends of mine never tire of relying on some UN resolutions as partial justification for their right to exist.
If only the world were as simple as you seem to think it to be..
(Actually have no interest in eating Camel. In '88 ate some Zebra. Meh. Last winter I was really pushed to eat Kudu. I resisted. Maybe I'm getting old. Though I never was all that interested in eating dog either.)