I thought the moderator was fine this time around.
Yeah but he had the delivery wrong. “Israel is about to bomb Iran. What do you do? What do you do?”
Obama would be, “I wanna know where the bomb is at.”
That pretty much seals the matter of who won the debate.
It’s not who the SDMB denizens think won, it’s who the general public thinks won. It has nothing to do with honesty or argumentative skill; it’s who the public thought won.
Had you not heard? There is this viaduct thing that runs along the Turk-Iraqi border from Iran to Syria that the Iranians use to get stuff to the sea (because the Persian and Omani gulfs are just no good for anything). Or maybe it is a tunnel …
Marines in battle gear in Iraq:
Anyone see any fixed bayonets?
From what I can tell from other people mentioning it on the internet, Dick Morris thinks it was an Obama win and Bill Kristol thinks it was a Romney win. Apparently, one of them will have to be right about something.
Like Romney’s binder comment, Obama’s bayonets and horses comment will get so much play in the media. What non-issues. Wish they could focus on more important things. :rolleyes:
With 20/20 hindsight, you can afford a conscience. Thats the point, you can take almost any political position and make it work in hindsight.
Romney has been Monday morning quarterbacking one of the best stretches of foreign policy achievement in 30 years. Romney should never have agreed to a foreign policy debate, there was no way for him to look good. The best you can say about Romney is taht he didn’t implode.
He later went on to say that horses were also used in Afghanistan. I think someone needs to get a dictionary and show Hannity the definition of “fewer.” Unless he really thinks there are more bayonets and horses in service in today’s military than there were in 1913, in which case he’s beyond help.
While I don’t think he sunk to the level of utter uselessness of Jim Lehrer, he did seem pretty toothless and absent. At least to me.
I think one thing that has developed since the conventions is the reinforcement of the credibility gap between the two tickets.
My brother in law who voted for McCain just doesn’t trust Romney and after the convention and the VP debate, doesn’t trust Ryan either. But he might still vote for them because Obama didn’t fix the economy fast enough.
So he will vote for the party that broke the economy in the first place. Makes perfect sense.
Actually it’s freaking VERY important. R. Money wants to give money to the military that they HAVEN’T EVEN ASKED FOR. Saying we need eleventy billion ships like we had 100 years ago only proves he doesn’t know that the modern navy can do more with less ships, and that he has no idea of what he’s talking about, but that he’d rather waste even MORE money on the military because he’ll be DAMNED if he gives any poor people a handout!
He doesn’t see it as a waste of money because it is a handout of sorts. He’ll be handing out fat contracts for those expenditures. The neocons are salivating just thinking about them. Mmmm, defense contracts…
Obama did fine, although its hard to tell if he did everything he needed to do to erase his lack of presence in the first debate.
Romney seemed like he was talking out of his ass, but didn’t really flounder.
I loved the 1980s foreign policy / 1950s social policy / 1920s economic policy sound bite.
But really the one thing I took away from all this is that “four years closer to a nuclear Iran” is the new “it’s the ship that made the Kessel run in under twelve parsecs”
Romney wants $2 trillion (over ten years I presume) more money (over and above what is currently budgeted or requested) to be spent on defense. I want to know why. What does he have in mind? Look at this chart. It’s insane. The military-industrial complex is out of control. And Obama was correct when he said we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. It’s actually the next thirteen countries according to that chart.
I doubt the Cookie Monster will be in any sort of mood to share his stash.
Sure! Got any old guitar picks?
“Attack you? Governor, do you think I’m attacking you?” [guffaw, into grin] “Governor, you don’t know what an attack is, if you think these policy differences are an attack–you should try having your patriotism attacked, your nationality attacked, your citizenship attacked, your religion attacked, your family attacked–and that’s before breakfast in the morning. You need a thick skin to be President, you need to learn to shrug this off as beneath your notice. If I whined about criticism as personal attacks, I’d never get anything done in this office–and you never will if you think my comments have been attacks. Now, would you care to respond to my comments, or am I in for more whining? Either way, I assure you, I can take it.”
“Governor, have you looked at a map of the Middle East lately? If you had, you probably would have noticed something labeled the ‘Persian Gulf’, it’s been in all the papers recently. It’s a pretty good channel to the sea. DOn’t trust me, though–check it out for yourself. Tell you what, why don’t you brush up on your geography, and get back to me? I’ll wait.”