Romney the great agreer. nice to know he thinks Obama is doing such a great job
on foreign policy.
Best quote of the night..."If the debate had been a half an hour
longer, Mitt Romney would have endorsed President Obama".CNN
Romney changed the subject to "economy", because he clearly had nothing
on foreign policy.
What the first two comments have failed to acknowledge is that the most
important issue to voters is the economy. Mitt Romney didn't need to win
the debate on foreign policy. He pivoted back to the economy every chance that
he got. I watched the PBS commentary afterwards and they agreed that this was a
draw with maybe a slight edge for Romney.
After a half hour they were just repeating talking points we've all heard
before.Repeat after me: "Mr. Romney has pledged $2 trillion
additional dollars that the military has not asked for."or Mitt tells
us for the 100th time: "I know how to create 12 million new jobs."I'm tired of these two regurgitating their scripts.I'm a
proponent of the Mulligan election process. We put None of the Above on the
ballot and if he wins both parties have 90 days to bring us another candidate.
Yo Fred!The topic of the debate was "Foreign Policy".Important topic to the majority of voters.
Since the last debate, the commander has learned about a ship which has air
planes landing on it, or can go under water.
Economy and foreign policy is like ham & eggs.
Never thought I'd see it, but Romney morphed again! There were times where
it appeared that Barack Obama was debating with himself. Romney the moderate,
agreeing with Obama on foreign policy. What ever happened to Tough Talking
Romney? He even agreed on sanctions with Iran and the success Obama has
enjoyed. It was mind-boggling. And there wasn't even a wink to the neocon
architects of the pre-debate Romney foreign policy.Of course, there
was the discussion on the economy and national debt as essential parts of
maintaining a strong America, and again there was the question of how Romney was
going to grow the economy and reduce the debt while cutting $5 trillion in taxes
across the board and increasing defense spending by $2 trillion.Romney's desire to increase the military seemed to focus on the days
pre-WWII when there was a demand for quantity not quality. Nowadays, a single
naval strikeforce has 10x the power of the entire U.S Navy during WWII. He
argued for a military designed more to fight the last war than to be prepared to
fight the next war -- a true Cold Warrior!
Saw another Romney tonight. The Etch a Sketch is still working. No wonder he
left as Govenor after only term and a 35% approval rating.
@worf"Economy and foreign policy is like ham & eggs" and Romney sure seemed to agree with Obama's recipes, But thats alright I
am sure Romney will give his etch a sketch a good shake an come out with all new
@freddfunny not what the poll showed, the CNN poll that over sampled
republicans gave Obama the clear win 48% to 40%.
I do not understand you posting an AP story line when there are several
able-bodied Reporters, fully capable of reporting accurately. Give us a reason
to read the News!
@worf Mcallen, TX?????? Modern warfare has changed considerable
since the days of confrontation with the former Soviet Union. With the shift to
asymmetric warfare and the problems introduced by dysfunctional nation-states
like Syria and Iran or terrorist groups operating out of dysfunctional
nation-states like Mali, Yemen, and Somalia, how many nuclear supercarriers
(with associated aircraft and support naval forces), nuclear ICBMs, nuclear
attack and missle-carrying submarines are necessary for carrying out combat
operations in the Middle East?The United States no longer faces a
war on continental Europe and the high seas of either the Atlantic or Pacific.
Those days are gone. Today's military is dependent upon technology and
fast response. The use of drones, technology and cyber security are are the
center of the new frontiers of modern warfare.With reference to your
juvenile remarks about " . . . the commander has learned about a ship which
has air planes landing on it, or can go under water", according to the
transcript of the debate, it appears you were criticizing Romney for his desire
to rebuild the old navy rather than understand the new navy of today.
I may be a Republican, but I believe Obama has been quite good in foreign
affairs; Romney never had much hope of taking an edge in this category. His
goal was probably a tie, and he came close to that tonight (CNN poll gave a 8
point spread, which is pretty close). Really, his main goal tonight needed to
be to put undecided voters at ease that he could be at least OKAY at foreign
affairs, so they can turn their attention to what they really care about, which
is the economy, deficit, unemployment. I think he did that. As a
CBS commentator said, "This was the least important debate" to Americans
(not to be confused with UNimportant). My question is, this is the one that
happens a week before the vote, so does it stick with voters more? If so, I
think Obama wins in two weeks. But if in those two weeks people refocus to the
economy, it will be close.
Ying Fah, Sorry, but the Navy of today is not as advanced as you
think. All this technology is going to cost us a trillion dollars less? That
makes sense to you?Capability? We just lost a big chunk of NASA to
Muslims, while giving billions to there Brotherhood.Obama can't
tell the difference between a video and terrorist attack. Can't even
protect the embassy?Blocking an investigation of thousands of
American weapons to Mexican cartels. These weapons killed men, women, and
children.What good foreign policy are you seeing?
@SwordmaidenGood point. After all, any reporter can watch the actual
debate just like we did.Why give the AP view when DN's political
reporters are capable of watching and reporting?They are playing right
into the hands of new media.
This election:takers vs makersconsumers vs producers Republic vs CommunismIndependence vs Government
controlEver notice how elementary school children look like