Obama sounded great except when he tried to turn things into an attack on Romney; when he was talking about how awesome his policy was he sounded smooth and assured, but when he started talking about how terrible Romney was he started to stumble. I have no idea how this one is going to come out.
On substance, I have a hard time finding a point on which they actually disagreed.
Romney was in survival mode throughout, being very careful not to allow anything for Obama to pounce on. He also managed to reverse all the remaining positions that he had and agree with nearly everything Obama has done over the past four years. Note to Mitt: Just saying what Obama says, only louder, doesn’t mean you have an opposing position. Unbelievable.
…or he has to write the headlines. How many times do you think “Horses and bayonets” will show up in the next news cycle?
It’s silly, sure, but it’s a wonderful silliness at Romney’s expense, and it provides reporters a great joke that they can justify by talking about Romney’s argument. That argument of Romney’s will probably get more attention on the lamestream media than any other argument he made during the debate, by virtue of being tied to an internet meme. And that’s probably not what he’d like to have as the takeaway from the debate.
He’s the NYTimes’ token conservative. Last debate when Obama *clearly *knocked it out of the park, Brooks practically choked on the words, “Obama might have picked up a little…” He never cracks smile. I can’t stand him.
The question is whether they should have been allowed to shed all that they would have while trying to appeal to private investors, or to have been saved by Obama’s bailout.
Look, it’s frustrating enough to deal with Republicans’ preference for theory on broad economic performance over history. This is a clear situation where Obama’s choice was clearly, demonstrably, empirically proven right.
I was listening to NPR this evening, and the pundit of the hour presented the “horses and bayonets” argument to the observation about the Navy. So I was expecting this retort and applaud Obama for going there, but there’s no reason why Romney should have walked right into that trap. He should have anticipated it and taken the steam out of it instead of just sitting there with that strained, sweaty “I want my mommy” grimace on his face.
I though I saw Maddow on YouTube, but it may have been someone else. She’s not close up, isn’t talking, and I had to lower my connection quality to not get random skips.
BBC is saying Obama clearly won this one but that Romney presented himself as not the clown on foreign policy he had come to be portrayed as. So in the three debates, I guess that’s one big win for Romney and a modest and a more sound win for President Obama.
I will be glad when this whole thing is over. And it would be a personal disaster for me if Romney won, because I know a strong Tea Party supporter here in Bangkok who would probably never stop crowing about it. The American public had damned well better not let me down.
Obama won the debate but Romney may have won the war - he only needed to look vaguely Presidential and show that he’s not going to completely balls up the job. Remember foreign policy is low down the priority list for most Americans so is hard to believe that those people who are still undecided care too much about the intricacies of the arguments here.
Did Romney really say that Syria was Iran’s only route to the sea? I saw some people mention it but can’t confirm it anywhere at the moment. Because if so, dude, seriously?