His support for anti-ballistic missile systems would counter a real-world threat …
Yes, we all remember how well Star Wars turned out, don’t we?
shrug That’s like telling the Wright brothers, “a flying machine? that’ll never work. just look at all the guys that have tried before you.”
The whole point Romney was trying to make, regardless of the 1917 remark, is just stupid. The idea that we have a tragically underdeveloped Navy and military that we need to spend $2 trillion to get back is just nonsense. Nobody in the military is even asking for that.
Well, going to what they thought it was a good idea in 1917… 
What you have there is the equivalent of a Maginot line in space, sure it works in specific circumstances, but it is fairly easy for the bad guys to get around it.
Where does this come from? I’m sure the military would love more tank and planes and ships. The Marines wanted an Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle , but we didn’t want to spend that much for it, so we cut it. The Air Force wanted more F-22’s and F-35’s, but got told “no” because they cost too much. The Navy wanted 32 new destroyers, but that eventually got cut down to just three. Several top defense officials have suggested a goal of 4% of GDP for defense spending.
We develop all sorts of anti-missile systems. Yes, they each have certain threats that they’re designed to counter, and certain performance envelopes that they’re designed to meet, but so what? Just because THAAD, Patriot 3, Aegis, ESSM, or the CIWS aren’t “do everything everywhere” systems doesn’t mean we should cancel them or that they aren’t worth having around. Why we wouldn’t devote some serious R&D and develop systems to counter ballistic missiles is a mystery to me. We’ve got guys working on lasers (frickin’ lasers ;)) and rail guns. Why not something to shoot down the really big missiles that fly from far away and go really fast (oh - and they can carry nukes)? It’s not some fanciful pie-in-the-sky pipedream or voodoo jedi mysticism. It’s a program that’s already had at least modest success. Certainly more viable and useful than a high-speed train in CA’s central valley …
I thought it was a “Goshdarnit, I just lost the election, didn’t I?” look.
I fully agree. We should have systems that are sensible and work properly. And we already do, even under a damnliberal like Obama. Why do we need Romney for this stuff again?
See, I want someone who’d prefer not to deal with the military in charge of the military. Someone who’s totally gungho and wants toy ships and planes to play with will waste trillions of dollars in boondoggles, while someone who’s more…oh, let’s use the word conservative about military spending will limit it to things that work and are necessary.
I feel exactly the same way about all the welfare / social safety net spending.
So that we don’t waste money on Obama phones, Solyndra, and high-speed trains to nowhere?
Man, you conservatives will blow hundreds of dollars while bitching about the pennies, won’t you?
I’ve found that people who complain loudly about social safety nets (e.g., Social Security) are often the same ones who leap to take advantage of them.
moving it to arizona was a rather clever move…unless you use that tricksy syrian sea route.
this is why my main debate advise would be just to listen to what the other person said. listen, not think of what you want to say, listen.
imagine how the night would have went if mr. obama said: “did you just say syria is iran’s sea route?” govenor, i’m not sure what sort of maps they had at your school… iran has its own sea route, that they constantly mine, and that we, the us, using naval ships demine."
that or something really close would have been very sweet.
Shrug I can assure you that your anecdotal experience isn’t a universal one.
Since military spending is more than double that of welfare, this shows that your priorities are mistaken.
If someone is really concerned with cutting spending doesn’t it make more sense to tackle the single largest expenditure?
The Marine’s EFV was estimated to cost $15 billion. Obama’s stimulus bill had $8 billion for high speed rail (cite). Look at that, I’m halfway there.
They don’t want to cut spending. They want to line their pockets. Cutting spending is counter to that.
I don’t know that that’s true. When I look to cut spending in my budget, I don’t look first to my largest expenditure (my mortgage). I start with all the nice extras: eating out, movies, high definition cable, etc.
ETA: I think of the military as one of those essential expenditures, like my mortgage. High-speed rail and Solyndra are like a Big Mac or seeing the latest hot movie: it might be nice if I was flush with cash, but since we’re strapped, that’s one area we can do without.
Red state vs. blue state math is hardly anecdotal.