Usa Thread

[Flashermac]

Mitt Romney Thinks He's Won The Election, And Tonight He Just Played Not To Lose

 

The final presidential debate is over, and Mitt Romney played it very safe.

 

The Republican candidate has had a relatively unremarkable debate, devoid of any major flubs, but also lacking in memorable attack lines or zingers against President Barack Obama. Romney has missed several opportunities to hit his opponent head on, including on the issue of Libya, a flashpoint among conservatives and a rare area of vulnerability in the Obama administration's foreign policy.

 

In fact, Romney even went so far as to exempt the president from one of his criticisms, over the U.S. troop withdrawal in Afghanistan.

 

This strategy may actually have been the smartest choice for Romney, who has so far struggled to effectively attack his opponent's foreign policy record. In tonight's debate, Romney faced the difficult challenge of embracing the more popular aspects of Obama's foreign policy — including the troop withdrawals in Iraq and Afghanistan — while also establishing himself as a strong alternative to serve as commander in chief.

 

But with his poll numbers still on the rise, Romney didn't need a big win at the final debate. He just needed to prevent a routing — which included avoiding moments like last week's flubbed response on Libya — and to that end, he accomplished what he had to Monday night.

 

Sort of looked that way.

[kamui]

The first polls give Obama an advantage:

 

 

Obama Unlikely to Get Big Debate Bounce, but a Small One Could Matter

By NATE SILVER

Instant-reaction polls following Monday night’s debate in Boca Raton, Fla., judged President Obama to be the winner.

 

A CBS News poll of undecided voters who watched the debate found 53 percent giving it to Mr. Obama, 23 percent to Mitt Romney and 24 percent declaring it a tie. Mr. Obama’s margin of victory in the poll was slightly wider than Mr. Romney’s following the first presidential debate in Denver, which a similar CBS News poll gave to Mr. Romney at 46 percent to 22 percent.

 

Other polls, conducted among a broader group of voters rather than just undecided ones, suggested a smaller margin for the president.

 

A Public Policy Polling survey of voters in 11 swing states who watched the debate found them giving it to Mr. Obama, 53 percent to 42 percent.

 

A CNN poll of registered voters who watched the debate put Mr. Obama ahead, 48 percent to 40 percent. That was similar to Mr. Obama’s 46-39 margin in a CNN poll of the second debate, and much smaller than Mr. Romney’s 67-25 advantage in the first one.

 

An online poll by Google Consumer surveys had Mr. Obama winning, 45.1 percent to 35.3 percent. His roughly 10-point margin in the poll is smaller than in a Google poll after the second debate, which gave it to Mr. Obama by 17 points, or Mr. Romney’s after the first, which he won by 22 points.

 

There is, obviously, some disagreement on the magnitude of Mr. Obama’s advantage — the polls surveyed different types of voters and applied different methods to do so.

 

But averaging the results from the CBS News, CNN and Google polls, which conducted surveys after all three presidential debates along with the one between the vice-presidential candidates, puts Mr. Obama’s margin at 16 points.

...

 

NYT

 

 

[gobbledonk]

Watching a report tonight on the lengths Mossad are going to in ensuring that Iran don't develop a working nuke, one of the Americans they interviewed made the point that if Israel goes to war with Iran, the US is automatically at war with Iran and its allies. A former head of Mossad claimed that any scenario of missiles being rained on Israel from Gaza/Syria/wherever had to be better than the prospect of the regime in Iran have a nuclear weapon. They also interviewed a former General from Iran's Revolutionary Guard and his prognosis was bleak - 'They (the regime) dont care about Iran, and Mutually Assured Destruction wont work because they believe they are the "chosen ones"'.

 

The 'fanatic with a nuke' concept is nothing new, but I wouldnt want to be the guy sitting around a table with the Joint Chiefs in 2013 trying to work out what to do next when Israel throws down with its neighbours.

[Flashermac]

Iran is Israel;s neighbour? Of course Egypt is getting rather friendly with Iran now, as is Syria already.

 

The twelfth and final Imam is Muhammad al-Mahdi, who is believed by the Twelvers to be currently alive, and hidden until he returns to bring justice to the world.

 

 

[Flashermac]

Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile

 

 

Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.†The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

 

But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronised and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?

 

Aside from the horses and bayonets moment, this was essentially a debate without incident. Part of the fault was the format. It’s interesting to note that Romney won the first debate while standing up and Obama did better in the second when walking around. But when both men were forced to sit for 90 minutes, the energy was inevitably reduced and neither broke through the fourth wall convincingly. Romney had a slight edge because he didn’t use his hands so much: Obama blew his closing statements by developing ultra-energetic conjurer’s hands (“Look at the hands, not at the cards, look at the hands…â€)

 

But the bigger problem was that they agreed on the essentials, which were all about foreign policy. Romney refused to tackle Obama directly on Libya (I shouted at the TV that he should, but he just wouldn’t listen) and Fast and Furious seems to have been forgotten by the GOP. In everything else, Obama has become so homicidally neoconservative and Romney so desperately peaceful that they’ve met in the middle on most issues. Both would defend Israel in the event of an attack, both want out of Afghanistan in 2014 and neither would let Iran get the bomb. If you want a real debate on foreign policy, you’re just going to have to wait until Rand Paul gets the nomination in 2020.

 

At times this felt almost as boring as that Gingrich v Huntsman debate that I and about 4 other people watched during the primaries. Romney tried his darnedest to bring everything back to the economy and Obama seemed to say in every answer, “So what we need to do in the Middle East is talk more about how rubbish my opponent is.†It’s almost lucky that Obama isn’t running unopposed in this election because then he’d have nothing to run on at all.

 

Where a disagreement did exist was on the question of leadership; Romney wants to be proactive and Obama pledges to remain reactive. Nevertheless, both seem committed to nation building overseas – with Obama throwing in the caveat that he’d like to do some nation building at home, too.

 

The real difference was in style. In his closing statement – after Obama was done making the Ace of Spades disappear – Romney channelled Reagan by looking straight into the camera and asserting his faith in America. It was empty, sugary stuff that will make liberals sick. But it was infinitely preferable to Obama’s constant, nasty attacks. Sometimes in life, the nice guys do win.

 

We also have to judge this debate as part of the narrative arc of this season. Romney won the first debate by a mile. Because Romney’s win was so decisive, it sparked an image change: Americans started to think of him as presidential material. That’s why Obama winning the second debate by an inch made little impact – people were watching Romney not to see him land punches but to see how well he could take them. He won the third debate because, by the end of the night, his and Obama’s positions in the narrative arc had switched. Romney now looks like the President and Obama looks like the challenger.

 

 

The Telegraph

 

Monument Honors US Horse Soldiers in Afghanistan

 

[gobbledonk]

Iran is Israel;s neighbour?

 

Geographically, Israel may be separated from Iran by Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan, but I'm sure that 'flight time' between their respective borders is barely enough to get the kids into the bunker. Of the countries in the buffer zone, Lebanon is on the brink of civil war/total anarchy, Syria is already there, Iraq remains an extremely dangerous place for locals and visitors (?) alike, and the Jordanians are struggling with a massive humanitarian crisis on their borders courtesy of the above. Turkey has a very powerful military machine (atm pointed at the Syrians, oh joy), and the Saudis have long been accused of covertly funding Islamic extremists. One tiny-but-rich nation with nuclear weapons and powerful friends stuck in the middle of a powderkeg - fan-freakin-tastic.

 

FWIW, I have long considered Turkey the elephant in the room - their government seems pro-Western, but the whole 'secular democracy' thing doesn't sit well with the fundamentalists in that part of the world. I do know how much respect they gained from their former enemies after Churchill's disastrous Dardanelles campaign - the Syrians might want to reconsider shelling their border towns.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443635404578035822373395226.html

 

ISTANBUL—Turkey attacked targets inside Syria for a second day Thursday and its parliament authorized military offensives into foreign countries, deepening the threat of sustained conflict along the neighbors' 565-mile common border.

 

Syria, at the United Nations, castigated its neighbor for policies it said were fueling the conflict.

 

Ankara's military and legislative moves came a day after Syrian shells landed in the Turkish border town of Akcakale, killing five people and spurring Turkish retaliatory strikes.

 

In spite of the military authorizations passed earlier in the day, Turkish officials suggested Thursday that further armed action isn't likely imminent. The day's moves underscored how Ankara, while it has the vocal backing of its international allies after the attack on its territory, appears to have no partners for broader military action.

[robaus]

So how else can Iran gain access to the Mediterranean? Not through the Suez Canal. Just hike across Iraq and there you are!

 

p.s. Never forget that Obama thinks there are 58 states.

 

You mean like this...

 

18 February 2012

 

Iran warships enter Mediterranean via Suez Canal

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17083791

 

[Flashermac]

They were able to do so with Egypt's permission. Actually, with Mubarak gone I don't think Iran has to worry any more about permission. Mubarak was ousted on 11 February - and one week later Iran was allowed through the canal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[robaus]

>>President Obama said: Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.†The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

 

Obama did NOT say ...the army does not use horses and bayonets any more. Read it again...FEWER.. and Obama is correct

 

Sounds like it's the Twitter twats who need their ears dewaxed..

 

>>But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan)

 

It was Romney who was being dishonest, comparing the USA's modern fleet of 11 huge aircraft carriers to 1917 battleships.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

 

[gobbledonk]

Thought better of it - didnt want to make an ass of myself.