Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
The Last Presidential Debate - 10/22/12
Topic Started: Oct 19 2012, 01:51 PM (4,181 Views)
kbp

Monday - October 22, 2012

Topic: Foreign policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Bob Schieffer (Host of Face the Nation on CBS)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/19/Obama-Foreign-Policy-disaster

Obama Doctrine: The Rap Sheet So Far ...

For the vast majority of this presidential election cycle, voters’ focus has been on domestic policy. But on Monday night, President Obama will be on the hot seat over his foreign policy. Obama leads Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on foreign policy issues by a narrow margin; over the past several months, Romney has closed the gap on President Obama.

The incumbent almost always has an advantage on foreign policy over the challenger in presidential elections. Four years of experience invariably make the president seem like an international leader; challengers, largely governors, have little foreign policy experience of which to speak.

But President Obama has a problem that no incumbent has had since Jimmy Carter: his foreign policy has been a complete and utter failure. Yes, Osama Bin Laden is dead. And no, there hasn’t been a genocidal holocaust over the past four years. Otherwise, Obama’s resume is an unblemished record of failure, misery, and facilitation of human rights violation.

In the Middle East, President Obama has condemned vast swaths of the Muslim world to generations of Islamist oppression; what he called the Arab Spring was always an Islamist Uprising. After the storming of our embassy in Egypt, the American people recognize that; after the al Qaeda flag flew over our embassy in Tunisia, it became clear to Americans that the Obama Doctrine is weakness, appeasement, and inaction. After Libya, it became absolutely clear that Obama’s policy of non-offensiveness in the Middle East – anti-colonialism and multiculturalism – has bloody consequences. Obama's Middle East policy is more than "not optimal." It's downright dangerous.

In Europe, President Obama’s policy of pushing worldwide inflation and stimulus has encouraged all of the European Union to bow before the fiscal calamities of Spain and Greece with bailout after bailout.

In China, the communist government continues to repress its people, force the murder the unborn, cyberattack American targets, expand its territorial ambitions in places like the South China Sea, and stand against action in Iran and North Korea – all while funding its military with American debt repayment, thanks to Obama’s spendthrift habits.

In South America, the Chavez revolution – socialism – has swept the continent, with the help of President Obama. Early in his term, he stood against anti-dictatorial reform in Honduras, and in the process handed Hugo Chavez another ally. Chavez, meanwhile, continues to play the strongman, make overtures to Russia and Iran, threaten the United States rhetorically – and then call on Americans to re-elect President Obama.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin awaits even more flexibility from President Obama after the election.

In Iran, the ayatollahs dance with glee that President Obama has stood for so long and with such vigilance against a prospective Israeli military strike. They celebrate Obama’s inaction on a true Iranian Uprising, even as Obama backs the Muslim Brotherhood Wave.

In Israel, our closest ally, the population fears a catastrophic war from all sides, thanks to the conversion of Egypt from peace partner to enemy, the incentivization of Hamas and Hezbollah to further terrorism, the US-backed chaos in Syria, and the creation of an extremist regime in Turkey.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, defeat has been snatched from the jaws of victory.

Virtually nowhere on earth can our allies say they are more safe and secure under an Obama presidency; virtually nowhere on earth can our enemies say they are significantly worse off than they were before President Obama’s election.

President Obama may have a symbolic advantage in the debate Monday night on foreign policy – he will have the title of President. But if Mitt Romney can catalog for Americans just how our situation in the world has changed – and how President Obama’s lead-from-behind, spineless and cowardly foreign policy has condemned multitudes around the globe to tyranny – Obama may not hold that title for much longer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toast
Member Avatar

The LAST Presidential Debate?

It is the third of 2012, and may truly be the last if "I wish I could use my middle name" Hussein is re-elected.
Edited by Toast, Oct 19 2012, 04:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Toast
Oct 19 2012, 04:27 PM
The LAST Presidential Debate?

It is the third of 2012, and may truly be the last if "I wish I could use my middle name" Hussein is re-elected.
Since the previous debate has potential for more comments (Libya), I hit the title edit to make it easier for everyone to distinguish between final two POTUS debate threads of this year

...and look what the 'nice guy' gets for his efforts! :laughin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toast
Member Avatar

kbp
Oct 19 2012, 05:11 PM
Toast
Oct 19 2012, 04:27 PM
The LAST Presidential Debate?

It is the third of 2012, and may truly be the last if "I wish I could use my middle name" Hussein is re-elected.
Since the previous debate has potential for more comments (Libya), I hit the title edit to make it easier for everyone to distinguish between final two POTUS debate threads of this year

...and look what the 'nice guy' gets for his efforts! :laughin:
I agree whole-heartedly that kbp is a nice guy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

Toast
Oct 19 2012, 04:27 PM
The LAST Presidential Debate?

It is the third of 2012, and may truly be the last if "I wish I could use my middle name" Hussein is re-elected.
Making it the last debate would be high on my bucket list.

These debates indulge voters too lazy to examine the careers, political bents, and boon companions of the candidates.. Whenever I encounter anyone who admits that his vote turned on one or more of these sideshows, I conclude he's just as likely to tell me that War and Peace is the greatest novel ever written, although he's never read it.. After all, he did see the movie.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Duke parent 2004
Oct 19 2012, 05:51 PM
Toast
Oct 19 2012, 04:27 PM
The LAST Presidential Debate?

It is the third of 2012, and may truly be the last if "I wish I could use my middle name" Hussein is re-elected.
Making it the last debate would be high on my bucket list.

These debates indulge voters too lazy to examine the careers, political bents, and boon companions of the candidates.. Whenever I encounter anyone who admits that his vote turned on one or more of these sideshows, I conclude he's just as likely to tell me that War and Peace is the greatest novel ever written, although he's never read it.. After all, he did see the movie.
It does allow us to identify flat out lies coming from candidates. The pressure from a face-to-face 'confrontation' seems to have worked well in the last debate.


ADD: I get your point, being guilty of having to research for lies myself ...even though I do read a lot of news.
Edited by kbp, Oct 19 2012, 06:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
foxglove

kbp
Oct 19 2012, 01:54 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/19/Obama-Foreign-Policy-disaster

Obama Doctrine: The Rap Sheet So Far ...

For the vast majority of this presidential election cycle, voters’ focus has been on domestic policy. But on Monday night, President Obama will be on the hot seat over his foreign policy. Obama leads Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on foreign policy issues by a narrow margin; over the past several months, Romney has closed the gap on President Obama.

The incumbent almost always has an advantage on foreign policy over the challenger in presidential elections. Four years of experience invariably make the president seem like an international leader; challengers, largely governors, have little foreign policy experience of which to speak.

But President Obama has a problem that no incumbent has had since Jimmy Carter: his foreign policy has been a complete and utter failure. Yes, Osama Bin Laden is dead. And no, there hasn’t been a genocidal holocaust over the past four years. Otherwise, Obama’s resume is an unblemished record of failure, misery, and facilitation of human rights violation.

In the Middle East, President Obama has condemned vast swaths of the Muslim world to generations of Islamist oppression; what he called the Arab Spring was always an Islamist Uprising. After the storming of our embassy in Egypt, the American people recognize that; after the al Qaeda flag flew over our embassy in Tunisia, it became clear to Americans that the Obama Doctrine is weakness, appeasement, and inaction. After Libya, it became absolutely clear that Obama’s policy of non-offensiveness in the Middle East – anti-colonialism and multiculturalism – has bloody consequences. Obama's Middle East policy is more than "not optimal." It's downright dangerous.

In Europe, President Obama’s policy of pushing worldwide inflation and stimulus has encouraged all of the European Union to bow before the fiscal calamities of Spain and Greece with bailout after bailout.

In China, the communist government continues to repress its people, force the murder the unborn, cyberattack American targets, expand its territorial ambitions in places like the South China Sea, and stand against action in Iran and North Korea – all while funding its military with American debt repayment, thanks to Obama’s spendthrift habits.

In South America, the Chavez revolution – socialism – has swept the continent, with the help of President Obama. Early in his term, he stood against anti-dictatorial reform in Honduras, and in the process handed Hugo Chavez another ally. Chavez, meanwhile, continues to play the strongman, make overtures to Russia and Iran, threaten the United States rhetorically – and then call on Americans to re-elect President Obama.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin awaits even more flexibility from President Obama after the election.

In Iran, the ayatollahs dance with glee that President Obama has stood for so long and with such vigilance against a prospective Israeli military strike. They celebrate Obama’s inaction on a true Iranian Uprising, even as Obama backs the Muslim Brotherhood Wave.

In Israel, our closest ally, the population fears a catastrophic war from all sides, thanks to the conversion of Egypt from peace partner to enemy, the incentivization of Hamas and Hezbollah to further terrorism, the US-backed chaos in Syria, and the creation of an extremist regime in Turkey.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, defeat has been snatched from the jaws of victory.

Virtually nowhere on earth can our allies say they are more safe and secure under an Obama presidency; virtually nowhere on earth can our enemies say they are significantly worse off than they were before President Obama’s election.

President Obama may have a symbolic advantage in the debate Monday night on foreign policy – he will have the title of President. But if Mitt Romney can catalog for Americans just how our situation in the world has changed – and how President Obama’s lead-from-behind, spineless and cowardly foreign policy has condemned multitudes around the globe to tyranny – Obama may not hold that title for much longer.
Remember that Bob Schieffer is the moderator at the debate Monday night.

It depends on what questions the candidates are asked as to whether Obama is on the hot seat only-- or will Romney also be on the hot seat? After all, Romney has the neocon advisors.

Patrick J. Buchanan has some provocative questions:

http://buchanan.org/blog/will-obama-paint-romney-as-warmonger-5307

"...“Governor, Paul Ryan said in his debate Iran ‘is racing toward a nuclear weapon.” But 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2011 that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. What is your evidence that Iran is ‘racing toward a nuclear weapon?’”

“Governor, you have said of America and Israel, ‘The world must never see daylight between our two nations.’ Does that mean if Israel attacks Iran, you would take us to war on Israel’s side?”

“Governor, at VMI you said, ‘In Syria, I will work … to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.’ Would you give surface-to-air missiles to the Syrian rebels?”

“Governor, Japan and China are at sword’s point over the Senkaku Islands. If war breaks out, are we obligated by our alliance with Japan to come to her defense?”

The Republican peril in Boca Raton is that headlines the next day will have Romney, consciously or inadvertently, laying down some marker for a new war..."


Back on Feb. 23, 2012, Schieffer moderated a discussion with former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Gen. Cartwright; retired Centcom Commander, Adm. Fallon; and a correspondent from the New York Times, David Sanger on C-Span. It is about an hour long and might show where Schieffer's questions might go.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304552-1


I don't think Romney is going to get any soft ball questions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

foxglove
Oct 19 2012, 07:57 PM
snip

"...“Governor, Paul Ryan said in his debate Iran ‘is racing toward a nuclear weapon.” But 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2011 that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. What is your evidence that Iran is ‘racing toward a nuclear weapon?’”

Judging from what the administration in israel has told me, along with the fact that the present POTUS has addressed it as a problem we face, I feel confident it is an accurate claim that Iran is working towards building nuclear weapns.

“Governor, you have said of America and Israel, ‘The world must never see daylight between our two nations.’ Does that mean if Israel attacks Iran, you would take us to war on Israel’s side?”

Should such happen, I am quite certain that Israel will share the information they have showing there is a need for what you call an "attack", and that we would stand ready to defend Israel if necessary, just as we would for any of our other allies.

“Governor, at VMI you said, ‘In Syria, I will work … to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.’ Would you give surface-to-air missiles to the Syrian rebels?”

Consideration for such action could be on the table, subject to many other factors too numerous to go into details on with the limit of time we have available in this debate, but I will say surface-to-air missles will not be provided to counter attacks from "tanks".

“Governor, Japan and China are at sword’s point over the Senkaku Islands. If war breaks out, are we obligated by our alliance with Japan to come to her defense?”

The Republican peril in Boca Raton is that headlines the next day will have Romney, consciously or inadvertently, laying down some marker for a new war..."

Japan is one of our allies and we would take all measures possible to divert other nations from taking lands belonging to any of our allies, just as we would hope our allies would do for usif for instance Russia tried totake the State of Alaska.
Those are quick and easy responses, and I'm terrible at it. I'd expect much better from Romney, and much more. Barry is the one who will face the biggest problems in discussion on foreign topics.

I'm not big on foreign affairs and even I know about all mentioned above.
Edited by kbp, Oct 19 2012, 09:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/19/Obama-To-Russia-With-Love

Obama: To Russia, with Love



Here's a topic for debate!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Look at this article. Don't say the story hasn't been written

After Libya misfire, pressure on Romney in foreign policy debate

Romney expected to tread more cautiously on Libya

* Ex-businessman could be out of his comfort zone

* Polls show Obama's foreign policy edge shrinking

By Matt Spetalnick and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (Reuters) - When President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney face off on Monday in their third and final debate, it will be the Republican challenger's last best chance to recover from his botched "Libya moment" and exploit vulnerabilities in his opponent's foreign policy record.

But Romney has an uphill struggle to make his case against Obama, who will be buoyed by the advantages of incumbency as well as polls showing him with an edge - though a shrinking one - on the question of who is more trusted in global affairs.

This week's debate in Boca Raton, Florida, coming just 15 days before the election and devoted entirely to foreign policy, could be the riskiest of the three nationally televised showdowns for Romney, largely because of his inexperience and recent blunders on the world stage.

Romney's missteps in criticizing Obama's handling of a deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi - the focus of a vividly testy exchange in the previous debate - have complicated his broader strategy of trying to cast the president as a weak steward of American power abroad....snipped

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/usa-campaign-foreign-idUSL1E8LL73720121021


Unbelievable the Libyan attack on our consulate has imploded on the Obama Campaign and these fools say the pressure is on Romney, the ex-businessman out of his comfort zone.

How about the Chicago Community Organizer who has screwed up our Middle East Foreign Policy?
Edited by Baldo, Oct 21 2012, 04:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Baldo
Oct 21 2012, 04:48 PM
Look at this article. Don't say the story hasn't been written

After Libya misfire, pressure on Romney in foreign policy debate

Romney expected to tread more cautiously on Libya

* Ex-businessman could be out of his comfort zone

* Polls show Obama's foreign policy edge shrinking

By Matt Spetalnick and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (Reuters) - When President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney face off on Monday in their third and final debate, it will be the Republican challenger's last best chance to recover from his botched "Libya moment" and exploit vulnerabilities in his opponent's foreign policy record.

But Romney has an uphill struggle to make his case against Obama, who will be buoyed by the advantages of incumbency as well as polls showing him with an edge - though a shrinking one - on the question of who is more trusted in global affairs.

This week's debate in Boca Raton, Florida, coming just 15 days before the election and devoted entirely to foreign policy, could be the riskiest of the three nationally televised showdowns for Romney, largely because of his inexperience and recent blunders on the world stage.

Romney's missteps in criticizing Obama's handling of a deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi - the focus of a vividly testy exchange in the previous debate - have complicated his broader strategy of trying to cast the president as a weak steward of American power abroad....snipped

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/usa-campaign-foreign-idUSL1E8LL73720121021


Unbelievable the Libyan attack on our consulate has imploded on the Obama Campaign and these fools say the pressure is on Romney, the ex-businessman out of his comfort zone.

How about the Chicago Community Organizer who has screwed up our Middle East Foreign Policy?
Posted Image


Shhhh! Don't ruin Matt and Steve's day by pointing to the polls that followed the last debate.


ADD: The last couple WP articles I opened had some election news banner at the bottom showing a national poll with Barry leading.
Edited by kbp, Oct 21 2012, 04:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

kbp
Oct 21 2012, 04:57 PM
Baldo
Oct 21 2012, 04:48 PM
Look at this article. Don't say the story hasn't been written

After Libya misfire, pressure on Romney in foreign policy debate

Romney expected to tread more cautiously on Libya

* Ex-businessman could be out of his comfort zone

* Polls show Obama's foreign policy edge shrinking

By Matt Spetalnick and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (Reuters) - When President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney face off on Monday in their third and final debate, it will be the Republican challenger's last best chance to recover from his botched "Libya moment" and exploit vulnerabilities in his opponent's foreign policy record.

But Romney has an uphill struggle to make his case against Obama, who will be buoyed by the advantages of incumbency as well as polls showing him with an edge - though a shrinking one - on the question of who is more trusted in global affairs.

This week's debate in Boca Raton, Florida, coming just 15 days before the election and devoted entirely to foreign policy, could be the riskiest of the three nationally televised showdowns for Romney, largely because of his inexperience and recent blunders on the world stage.

Romney's missteps in criticizing Obama's handling of a deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi - the focus of a vividly testy exchange in the previous debate - have complicated his broader strategy of trying to cast the president as a weak steward of American power abroad....snipped

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/usa-campaign-foreign-idUSL1E8LL73720121021


Unbelievable the Libyan attack on our consulate has imploded on the Obama Campaign and these fools say the pressure is on Romney, the ex-businessman out of his comfort zone.

How about the Chicago Community Organizer who has screwed up our Middle East Foreign Policy?
Posted Image


Shhhh! Don't ruin Matt and Steve's day by pointing to the polls that followed the last debate.


ADD: The last couple WP articles I opened had some election news banner at the bottom showing a national poll with Barry leading.
? Inexperience on the World Stage? Romney???? What do they think the Olympics is? A local football game?

Has there EVER been a less experienced POTUS than Obama? And his initiation onto the world stage has cost us dearly, in terms of world respect and economic disaster.

I am actually getting a bit worried. I just wonder if the media and the Potus camp are so confident of his win because they plan to arrange it to come out just as they want.

I can't imagine anything worse than the format for tomorrow night. There is no love lost between these two men. And they have to SIT near each other.

There's so much riding on tomorrow night, and on this election in general, that it is about to drive me nuts.

Need to return to some sanity...
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Monday’s Debate Puts Focus on Foreign Policy Clashes
By DAVID E. SANGER NY Times

When President Obama and Mitt Romney sit down Monday night for the last of their three debates, two things should be immediately evident: there should be no pacing the stage or candidates’ getting into each other’s space, and there should be no veering into arguments over taxes.

This debate is about how America deals with the world — and how it should.

If the moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, has his way, it will be the most substantive of the debates. He has outlined several topics: America’s role in the world, the continuing war in Afghanistan, managing the nuclear crisis with Iran and the resultant tensions with Israel, and how to deal with rise of China.

The most time, Mr. Schieffer has said, will be spent on the Arab uprisings, their aftermath and how the terrorist threat has changed since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. No doubt the two candidates will spar again, as they did in the second debate, about whether the Obama administration was ready for the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, and three other Americans. Mr. Romney was widely judged to not have had his most effective critique ready, and this time, presumably, he will be out to correct that.

The early line is that this is an opportunity for Mr. Obama to shine, and to repair the damage from the first debate. (He was already telling jokes the other night, at a dinner in New York, about his frequent mention of Osama bin Laden’s demise.)

But we can hope that it is a chance for both candidates to describe, at a level of detail they have not yet done, how they perceive the future of American power in the world. They view American power differently, a subject I try to grapple with at length in a piece in this Sunday’s Review, “The Debatable World.”

But for now, here is a field guide to Monday’s debate...snipped

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/mondays-debate-puts-focus-on-foreign-policy-clashes/?hp


I think most pundits underestimate Romney.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

dsl
Oct 21 2012, 07:16 PM
I can't imagine anything worse than the format for tomorrow night. There is no love lost between these two men. And they have to SIT near each other.

There's so much riding on tomorrow night, and on this election in general, that it is about to drive me nuts.

Need to return to some sanity...
From Daniel Boorstin's book The Image, published fifty-one years ago:

The application of the quiz show format to the so-called "Great Debates" between Presidential candidates in the election of 1960 is only another example [of a pseudo-event]. These four campaign programs, pompously and self-righteously advertised by the broadcasting networks, were remarkably successful in reducing great national issues to trivial dimensions. With appropriate vulgarity, they might have been called the $400,000 Question (Prize: a $100,000-a-year job for four years). They were a clinical example of the pseudo-event, of how it is made, why it appeals, and of its consequences for democracy in America.

In origin the Great Debates were confusedly collaborative between politicians and news makers. Public interest centered around the pseudo-event itself: the lighting, make-up, ground rules, whether notes would be allowed, etc. Far more interest was shown in the performance than in what was said. The pseudo-events spawned in turn by the Great Debates were numberless. People who had seen the shows read about them the more avidly, and listened eagerly for interpretations by news commentators. Representatives of both parties made "statements" on the probable effects of the debates. Numerous interviews and discussion programs were broadcast exploring their meaning. Opinion polls kept us informed on the nuances of our own and other people's reactions. Topics of speculation multiplied. Even the question whether there should be a fifth debate became for a while a lively "issue."

The drama of the situation was mostly specious, or at least had an extremely ambiguous relevance to the main (but forgotten) issue: which participant was better qualified for the Presidency. Of course, a man's ability, while standing under klieg lights, without notes, to answer in two and a half minutes a question kept secret until that moment, had only the most dubious relevance—if any at all—to his real qualification to make deliberate Presidential decisions on long-standing public questions after being instructed by a corps of advisers. The great Presidents in our history (with the possible exception of F. D. R.) would have done miserably; but our most notorious demagogues would have shone.


Sanity has been in short supply for at least half a century.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply