foreign policy debate

[carlfense]

Romney: Syria is Iran's route to the sea.

Map: No it's not.

 

Worse than Obama's lame 1980 joke? You decide.

[strigori]

What? You are just going to go and believe a map? Just what the liberal media would want. Liberals probably made the map anyway.

[carlfense]

The mainstream map industry has a well-known liberal bias.

[JJ Husker]

Well I guess picking on the map issue is your way of acknowledging that Obama did not do too well. I felt Romney came off as more Presidential and big picture while Obama seemed petty and condescending. Obamas comments on horses and bayonets.and aircraft carriers and these ships that go underwater which we call submarines. Come on. And oh btw, the Marines still do use bayonets. Also, early fact checking shows that Romney was correct on issues Obama claimed he was wrong. The impending military cuts (sequester) that Obama claimed would not happen, well that was news making in Washington because it is scheduled to happen. The Obama admin is already back tracking and now saying it shouldn't happen. The apology tour- Romney nailed it with the quote of Obamas words. The most amusing thing was that their policy positions were virtually identical, which Obama acknowledged a few times, but in his closing statement Obama said Romneys foreign policy positions were dangerous. To reiterate, Obama apparently called his own positions dangerous. Curious. I can sympathize with Obama, running on a platform of more of the same when all the last four years yielded was more tumult in the mideast, an Iran four years closer to being nuclear capable, and the weakest economy in our lifetimes. More of the same? No thanks.

[knapplc]

Apology Tour = You Didn't Build That

 

 

When the best your campaign can do is take snippets of sentences out of context and lie about the intent, you've got some problems with your own message. If Romney's message were stronger he wouldn't need to stoop to such tactics. Instead, the "I'm not Obama" mantra has gotten really tired - and kind of worrisome the closer we get to the election and need to know what our new president is actually going to do - and people aren't so stupid that they can't see this. You cannot base a successful campaign on lies. To wit:

 

Well I guess Obama did well. I felt Romney came off as more petty and condescending. Also, early fact checking shows that Romney was wrong. The impending military cuts (sequester) that Obama claimed would happen, well that was news making in Washington because it is scheduled to happen. Romneys foreign policy positions were dangerous. Obama, running on a platform of more economy? thanks.

 

You can change the tenor of a quote dramatically by selectively quoting it. Good to see you supporting Obama, JJ, as your quote proves. I appreciate Team Romney teaching us how to see things more clearly. I anticipate a spate of similar quotes throughout HuskerBoard conversations as we all figure out that we're really supporting everyone else's candidate.

[BigRedBuster]

No matter who it is, it is almost impossible for a challenger to look more knowledgeable than a sitting President on foreign affairs.

 

That said, I agree with many people on CNN last night after the debate. Obama probably won the debate slightly last night. It wasn't a HUGE blow out like the first debate was. But, the bigger question was if it changed people's minds and it very well may not have.

 

One of their polls after the debate was asking if each candidate appeared to be able to lead the country in foreign affairs. And, it was almost a tie with around 60% of people saying each candidate would be able to do that.

[knapplc]

No matter who it is, it is almost impossible for a challenger to look more knowledgeable than a sitting President on foreign affairs.

 

That said, I agree with many people on CNN last night after the debate. Obama probably won the debate slightly last night. It wasn't a HUGE blow out like the first debate was. But, the bigger question was if it changed people's minds and it very well may not have.

 

One of their polls after the debate was asking if each candidate appeared to be able to lead the country in foreign affairs. And, it was almost a tie with around 60% of people saying each candidate would be able to do that.

 

Yeah, it does look like this is coming down to the wire.

 

I'll reiterate - I was dead wrong in my assessment of Romney's chances in these debates. I based my believe off of Romney's disastrous performance in several of the Republican Primary debates, but for these three, he was well-coached and prepared. He came across as a viable candidate, not the foot-in-mouth buffoon that showed up in a few of the primaries.

[JJ Husker]

Apology Tour = You Didn't Build That

 

 

When the best your campaign can do is take snippets of sentences out of context and lie about the intent, you've got some problems with your own message. If Romney's message were stronger, he wouldn't need to stoop to such tactics. Instead, the "I'm not Obama" mantra has gotten really tired - and kind of worrisome the closer we get to the election and need to know what our new president is actually going to do - and people aren't so stupid that they can't see this. You cannot base a successful campaign on lies. To wit:

 

Well I guess Obama did well. I felt Romney came off as more petty and condescending. Also, early fact checking shows that Romney was wrong. The impending military cuts (sequester) that Obama claimed would happen, well that was news making in Washington because it is scheduled to happen. Romneys foreign policy positions were dangerous. Obama, running on a platform of more economy? thanks.

 

You can change the tenor of a quote dramatically by selectively quoting it. Good to see you supporting Obama, JJ, as your quote proves. I appreciate Team Romney teaching us how to see things more clearly. I anticipate a spate of similar quotes throughout HuskerBoard conversations as we all figure out that we're really supporting everyone else's candidate.

I'm not sure I understand the point of your post, changing the tenor of what I said by not even selectively quoting but rather totally butchering what I said. I assume this means you think either I, or the Romney campaign, selectively quoted something as purposely as you just did. If that is the case, it would be much more effective if you just pointed out what you feel was quoted out of context.

 

The one case of this that is obvious is the "You didn't build that" BS. I agree with you on that issue. They have made a huge talking point of that one by using it out of context. However, I do feel it plays well with a lot of business owners and others who realize that businesses create jobs and not the government. I know it is being used out of context but I still feel it serves a purpose for them to continue it. Unfortunately that is how politics works nowadays. The "Apology Tour" is not really an issue of a quote being used out of context. It is simply an attempt to spin Obama's tour of the mideast in an unfavorable light. Once again, that is how politics works. And, I think it is a fair characterization of what he did. The quotes Romney used last night pertaining to this were exactly what Obama said in some of these places. That is not selectively quoting but rather pointing out what he said accurately. You can't hope to become the newly elected President by saying you agree with what the previous guy has been doing. This approach worked for Obama four years ago and I presume Romney is hoping it may very well work for him now.

 

Neither one of them is giving us gobs of specifics, they never do in a campaign. They are giving us generalities of how they envision things and indications of how they may do them if elected. On this, there is really no difference between them. Obama's main problem is that his message seems to be more of the same. I'm sorry but I don't think more of the same is what is needed. I think our economy can do better than what it has under his leadership. I also realize that much of those problems should fall more on congress than on the President but, once again, that is how it works. I think and hope that Romney will be more effective at getting our politicians to work together and actually accomplish something. That doesn't have anything to do with the letter behind their names. It has everything to do with the evidence of the last four years and my hope that it can be better than that.

[knapplc]

I'm not sure I understand the point of your post, changing the tenor of what I said by not even selectively quoting but rather totally butchering what I said.

 

If that's what you got out of it, that's exactly what I'd hoped. Mission Accomplished!

[carlfense]

Well I guess picking on the map issue is your way of acknowledging that Obama did not do too well.

If Obama didn't do too well then Romney didn't do too well . . . because Romney was repeatedly forced to agree with the president.

 

How often did they agree? 90% of the time on the big issues? (Afghan withdrawal, Iran sanctions, etc. etc.)

 

Romney's only difference was that he said that he would lead with strength through strong leadership which will strengthen our ability to lead.

[carlfense]

I'm not sure I understand the point of your post, changing the tenor of what I said by not even selectively quoting but rather totally butchering what I said. I assume this means you think either I, or the Romney campaign, selectively quoted something as purposely as you just did. If that is the case, it would be much more effective if you just pointed out what you feel was quoted out of context.

 

The one case of this that is obvious is the "You didn't build that" BS. I agree with you on that issue. They have made a huge talking point of that one by using it out of context. However, I do feel it plays well with a lot of business owners and others who realize that businesses create jobs and not the government. I know it is being used out of context but I still feel it serves a purpose for them to continue it. Unfortunately that is how politics works nowadays. The "Apology Tour" is not really an issue of a quote being used out of context. It is simply an attempt to spin Obama's tour of the mideast in an unfavorable light. Once again, that is how politics works. And, I think it is a fair characterization of what he did. The quotes Romney used last night pertaining to this were exactly what Obama said in some of these places. That is not selectively quoting but rather pointing out what he said accurately. You can't hope to become the newly elected President by saying you agree with what the previous guy has been doing. This approach worked for Obama four years ago and I presume Romney is hoping it may very well work for him now.

 

Neither one of them is giving us gobs of specifics, they never do in a campaign. They are giving us generalities of how they envision things and indications of how they may do them if elected. On this, there is really no difference between them. Obama's main problem is that his message seems to be more of the same. I'm sorry but I don't think more of the same is what is needed. I think our economy can do better than what it has under his leadership. I also realize that much of those problems should fall more on congress than on the President but, once again, that is how it works. I think and hope that Romney will be more effective at getting our politicians to work together and actually accomplish something. That doesn't have anything to do with the letter behind their names. It has everything to do with the evidence of the last four years and my hope that it can be better than that.

+1

[JJ Husker]

Well I guess picking on the map issue is your way of acknowledging that Obama did not do too well.

If Obama didn't do too well then Romney didn't do too well . . . because Romney was repeatedly forced to agree with the president.

 

How often did they agree? 90% of the time on the big issues? (Afghan withdrawal, Iran sanctions, etc. etc.)

 

Romney's only difference was that he said that he would lead with strength through strong leadership which will strengthen our ability to lead.

I would agree that there really was no strong, clear winner of this debate. Of course, the media pundits are tending to side with an Obama debate victory. That is to be expected and nothing earth shattering happened that would cause me to dispute it. I do however really feel that Romney appeared more Presidential and mature about the issues. I think Obama went to the well of attacking Romney a few too many times when what would have been more effective is to avoid some of the little one line zingers and look a little more mature about it. I felt it really resonated when Romney said "attacking me is not an agenda". There were no glaring differences between what each would have done in specific cases of Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. I do feel Romney tried to make the distinction that although he would do very similar things, he would try to do them with a little more forcefulness and from a slightly different basis. My take is he had to try to differentiate himself somehow even if it was ever so subtle. I do feel there is a rather large portion of our country that thinks the US is a force for good in the world and that the tenor of Obama's words in some of these mideast lands amounts to apologizing for our evil ways. I also feel that Israel has to not be extremely happy with some of the slights Obama has projected to our closest allie in that region. I would not characterize Romney's positions as "being forced" to agree with the President. Rather, I think that he wanted to distance himself from W's policies, make people understand that he isn't going to come in guns-a-blazin and willy-nilly get us embroiled in another war, and to purposefully look more Presidential. I feel he was successful in that regard.

[knapplc]

Rather, I think that he wanted to distance himself from W's policies, make people understand that he isn't going to come in guns-a-blazin and willy-nilly get us embroiled in another war, and to purposefully look more Presidential. I feel he was successful in that regard.

 

The abundance of rhetoric he's dropped regarding Iran and America's involvement in Syria (or lack thereof) pretty much refutes that.

[BigRedBuster]

I found something funny on the way to work this morning. I was listening to CNN. They were talking about Obama's plans for the next two weeks and that he is putting out a new campaign advertising push that gives more specifics on his economic plan....and I quote..." to counter his critics that claim he doesn't have any specifics."

 

I had to sit there and laugh. OK.....so the day after your last debate you are going to put out the specifics. That's convenient.

 

It is frustrating that neither candidate doesn't give specifics and just talks in generalities. But, it's convenient that you only give specifics after all the debates are done so you can't be challenged in the debates about those specifics.

 

On top of that, one of his major complaints about Romney is that he hasn't given out any specifics on his economic plan. SOOO....now after the debates you are finally giving out YOUR specifics?

 

Interesting tactic.

[knapplc]

Yep, I'm sure it's complete coincidence that he's putting out these specifics after the debates, BRB. No machinations involved at all.