Quick reactions:
1. The way that the candidates and the parties they represent have fundamentally identical views on foreign policy issues – Drones? Cool! Israel? My favorite! Iran? Bad! – goes a long way toward explaining why some Americans feel like there is no real difference. Granted, those differences appear stark on social issues and kinda-sorta-I-guess there are economic differences. But if this debate was the only thing you saw, it would be easy to conclude that these are two sides of the same coin.
2. Mitt's dead eyes made it more obvious than in the previous debates that he really doesn't give a flying shit about any of this, he's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to say to round up enough votes to get into office and address the only issue he cares about: insulating his economic bracket from any threats from below. That's it. Everything else is so much noise to him.
His self-presentation in this debate was, "Look, I know I've taken like five different positions on this.
buy zithromax online buy zithromax no prescription
I know that you know. And frankly I give zero shits."
3. I can't even imagine how much you would have to hate Obama to listen to Romney and think "Yeah, this guy sounds great!" He doesn't sound interested, he talks in circles, he takes scripted potshots at Obama and then admits that his positions are basically identical (i.e. on Afghanistan), and he talks about comprehensive strategies that he never explains. Unlike in the economic-themed debates where he throws out slogans people can respond to – Low taxes! Job Creators! Loud Noises! – he can't even do that much with foreign policy. How anyone convinces themselves that he scored a resounding victory on Monday night is beyond me. First debate? Sure. Yesterday? He did everything but take a dump on the stage.
4. The overwhelming sense I get when Romney talks is a guy shaking a handful of beads at some Indians and saying in an unnaturally loud voice, "LOOK! SHINY! I GIVE YOU BEADS, YOU GIVE ME ISLAND!" It's so easy to picture him alone with his advisers back-slapping and laughing, telling each other, boy, I bet those morons just ate that up. Can you believe they're buying this crap?
buy zoloft online buy zoloft no prescription
I can't either, Mitt.
Davis X. Machina says:
'It's so easy to picture him alone with his advisers back-slapping and laughing, telling each other, boy, I bet those morons just ate that up. '
Glengarry/Glen Ross 2012!
Middle Seaman says:
Romney is worse than Bush. Bush had extreme opinions; Romney has nothing.
The parties don't differ on Foreign policy much. The Republicans try to appear as hot heads, but that's about it. US foreign policy is mainstreaming mainstream. Both parties go to unnecessary wars. Both will do nothing about China because there is nothing to do. Iran is the major blunder of both parties. We should have included Iran in a regional nuclear agreement with Israel, Pakistan and India. Sanctions will not help much. Some think that the European approach to Israel is better than ours. Actually, Europe is one of the main reasons there is no peace. We don't help either. Here too, a totally different approach should have been taken.
Obama, the devil we know, seems to be winning.
daphne says:
I disagree – partially – on #2. Mitt also wants to be President just to BE President. As Ann said a while back, "It's our turn."
c u n d gulag says:
Obama clearly won, because Mitt agreed with him almost all night.
The line about horses and bayonet’s was a killer. Also the lines about aircraft carriers, subs, and the game of “Battleship.”
Zinger-zee-zinger-zing-zing!
Oh, if only President Obama had said, “And you can’t hire any more Hessian’s either, Governor, or knight's, to help fight the wars you and your Bush NeoCLOWN team want to get us into. Wars today are fought by America’s young men and women.”
Mitt looked tired, angry, and vacant.
And WTF was that with Syria being Iran’s path to the sea?
Maybe Donald Trump told him that Atlantic City was America’s path to the Atlantic and Europe?
Shorter Mitt : “When I’m President, regarding foreign policy, I’ll do what Obama’s doing – only more Caucasian.”
OBAMA WIN!
Let’s see what Cup O’ Schmoe’s gang has to say. After all, it’s the Villagers most highly rated TV show.
No surprise – Schmoe's ready to fellate Mitt and his NeoCLOWNS right now!!!
anotherbozo says:
Every time I puzzle over the American electorate (a recurrent malady), in this case the sad fact that they would let this inept liar get within a statistically even shot at the White House, I recall that they let Dubya get within cheating distance of the job, TWICE.
And I recall that the American people are capable of lying, en masse, to themselves, with only the least of prompts from their financial overlords. (Try us! See! Shiny beads!)
This enlightenment, like all satoris, is something fugitive, easy to forget. Which is why I need GinandTacos, my morning reality pill.
Major Kong says:
I don't buy the "both parties are the same on foreign policy" statement.
I'd say there's a 10-20% chance we attack Iran if Obama is reelected.
If Romney is elected I'd make that 80-90% (and that's being nicer to Romney than I probably should).
cat says:
#5 also includes the scene of Romney's advisors doing the same behind his back about him.
Romney is the kind of person who has no friends as the only people, who aren't his spawn, that hang around with him are there to get paid.
negative 1 says:
Sorry but saying there are 'kind of sort of economic differences' is a cop-out and a half. They actually represent two very distinct schools of economics, with Obama (and dems in general) being Neo-Keynesians and Rmoney and the rethugs being moneterists, or neo-classicists. The differences are stark and the outcomes of the policies would be VERY different. I think both candidates would agree as much.
c u n d gulag says:
I wonder which got hurt the worst in the beating they got when their master came home after last night’s debate?
Bolton’s, or Kristol’s, poor dog?
All those years and years of neoconning people, and Mitt turns into John Feckin’ Lennon last night.
I was waiting for Mitt to start singing, “All we are saying… Is give peace a chance…”
Sluggo says:
The take away I got from Romney last night was: he is gonna fuck up, Barney Fife style, and get us into a shooting war with Iran, North Korea (or maybe even Canada). At least Bush started stuff on purpose.
Major Kong says:
Say, does anyone remember that Republican candidate from a few years back? You know, the one who was against nation-building and was in favor of a "humble foreign policy"?
I can't remember the guy's name. He hasn't been around much lately.
Southern Beale says:
He forgot Poland! Er, I mean, Iraq!
Seriously, I'm sure lots of Republicans would like to forget Iraq. But if Obama had made such a stupid mistake, the RWNJs would be calling for his head on a pike. Forgetting all of our patriots who shed blood in that country, blahbeddy blah.
What a fucking moron. That was a mistake of Palinesque proportions. I can't for the life of me understand why the media is for the most part letting that one pass. How much blood and treasure have we wasted in that country in the past 10 years?
mel in oregon says:
ok, if romney wins what will happen? cut taxes for the wealthy, cut ss, medicare, unemployment benefits & food stamps. start a war with iran, & appoint wingnut tea party candidates to the supreme court. in 4 years you will be much worse off than you are now. what about obama? his cabinet & advisers tell it all. smaller tax cuts than romney for the wealthy, lesser cuts on ss, medicare, unemployment benes & food stamps. probably a war with iran, & appointment of conservative attorneys to the supreme court. in 4 years you will be slightly less worse off under obama than under romney. death by a 1000 cuts instead of slitting your jugular. what a great democratic choice!
Marty says:
Actually it's not a bad strategy for Mitt to just agree with Obama on everything. Because then he's just the White Obama. There are probably a lot of swing voters who would vote for that guy in a heartbeat.
Major Kong says:
Sure mel, they're both the same. Remember "Gush and Bore" from 2000? Do you REALLY think things would have been the same if Bush hadn't "won" in 2000?
JazzBumpa says:
Actually – since at least WW II, and possible quite a bit earlier, the great arc of American foreign policy was pretty constant, irrespective of administration.*
Until Bush. No other president ever had or would have taken us into a totally unjustified and unjustifiable war. And the same cast of neocon clowns that got us into that mess are Romney's foreign policy team.
I'd put the odds of war with Iran in the text president's term at:
Obama 70%
If that smarmy shit wins, we are totally and forever fucked, in about 17 different ways
*But not totally so, Truman wouldn't go for Winston Churchill's scheme to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and install the Shah. But Ike went for it, and THAT, my friends, is the real reason why they hate us over their. Also, Viet Nam. This is why do don't elect fucking generals.
JazzBumpa says:
Mel in Or reaches new heights in making mole hills out of mountains.
The stupid false equivalence – it burns.
JzB
Southern Beale says:
Actually it's not a bad strategy for Mitt to just agree with Obama on everything. Because then he's just the White Obama. There are probably a lot of swing voters who would vote for that guy in a heartbeat.
Sad but true.
Rick Massimo says:
"I can't even imagine how much you would have to hate Obama to listen to Romney and think "Yeah, this guy sounds great!"
I watched the debate in a bar, and about half the people there were cheering Romney, including one drunk not-at-all-racist woman who at one point screeched "YEAH, he CHANGED his MIND. It's PRESIDENTIAL. That's what a REAL president does."
"Actually it's not a bad strategy for Mitt to just agree with Obama on everything. Because then he's just the White Obama. There are probably a lot of swing voters who would vote for that guy in a heartbeat."
That's the sinking feeling I woke up with this morning: "Hey, Mitt, everyone agrees with Obama when it comes to foreign relations, so just agree with him on everything and it'll be a draw!"
cromartie says:
I can forgive the occasional misspelling. But any time I see someone type in all one case without punctuation, I assume I'm talking to someone strung out on some sort of drug, and I grade their opinions on the appropriate curve.
Nor do I take anyone that doesn't think the parties have significant platform differences seriously. You can make the argument that neither party has a platform or positions on issues that appeal to you and I'd buy it. But to suggest their the same is asinine.
Bernard says:
guess we'll never know how bad Gore would have been. we do know how bad Clinton was. and we are still paying for it, with Bush II, for example.
when the going gets tough, lol. tweedle dee and tweedle dum. gosh what a choice. slow or fast suicide/murder.
but dare anyone say that about Dems being "worse" than Repubs. after all the purpose of the Repubs is to sell us out. The Dems, well, traitors for money, with no moral qualms about helping the Repubs cut the American people's throat.
especially Clinton. now Clinton even makes Bush II like the incompetent he is.
but i'm not supposed to say that, am i?
eau says:
@Bernard: "especially Clinton. now Clinton even makes Bush II like the incompetent he is.
but i'm not supposed to say that, am i?"
I'm not even sure what the hell you ARE saying there*, let alone whether you're supposed to say it.
*Who is 'he' in that sentence? Bush, or Clinton?
Rick Massimo says:
"but i'm not supposed to say that, am i?"
That's a conservative-worthy persecution complex you've got there. Slow clapping for you.
Jrod says:
Wowie zowie, Bernard. The courage you display by speaking truth to power is astounding. You weren't supposed to say it but you said it anyway. I'm truly in awe.
I'll be praying that the Democratic Death Squads don't disappear you for saying that thing you weren't supposed to say.