OCinBuffalo

I am out of my mind for posting the truth...yeah...that's all you got. Nothing funnier than a liberal trying claim the high ground on foreign policy...when their candidate has been doing little more than copying Bush(GITMO is still open, renditions still occurring, and summary assassinations via drone are more "moral" than capturing people and interrogating them ), and, then trying to turn around and say Romney = Bush? Perhaps I was wrong? That's not cynicism, that's just idiocy. And meazza...if you don't get it, or why, yet...then you are just as feckless as Obama has been in these debates.

Cool. This makes sense. The bailout in Ohio is what I'd be doing if I was Obama, so, why would I be interested in finding contradictory news items? However, the "nuanced auto bailout"....as opposed to just the "auto bailout"? Interesting. If it's a good thing, and easily understood as such, then why the need for nuance? The fact that it has to be teased out and...honed, doesn't give your bother's friend pause? Of course I didn't expect you to grill anyone. It would be great if you did tho... To wit: 1) I just don't get how the hell independents don't matter....especially when Obama is underwater on enthusiasm, by 10-15+ pts, in ALL polls. It's hysterical that Obama is "ahead by 5" in a poll whose internals say the exact opposite: he is 13 pts down in enthusiasm, and losing I votes by 10. 2) The ONLY way that works is for a D turnout that SURPASSES 2008. Do any of your guys truly believe that Obama is going to turn out more Ds than 2008? Does anybody believe that the white folks who didn't show up in Ohio for McCain...won't show up for Romney? How the hell is Obama supposed to get another D+6-8 turnout in Ohio(depending on the poll/model) when he is down by double digits in enthusiasm? 3) Every single piece of data I can get my hands on shows that a large amount of BS is being spun into the top-line #s, that is largely incongruent with the internals of the same poll, and relies on a projected turnout that is...fantasy. Even the ones that have Romney winning have mostly the same problems. What do your pals think about that? And finally, this one is for you: after last night, do you still think Romney is a lightweight, when it comes to political ability?

It's hysterical, that you would use the term cynical, when the only reason Obama is in office at all...is cynicism. Look at what has happened to your elected officials ever since the Iraq War has been taken away as an issue. Loss after loss. Far too many liberals deluded themselves into believing that their ideas, and not their cynical approach to the Iraq War, were why they won in 2006-8. Romney correctly identified what you wanted to do = try to make him out to be Bush 2, a warmonger, etc. He refused to lose YOUR cynical game. He played it, and beat you at it. If he chose to be cynical, if that's how you want to characterize it, then, he is doing so in response to your party's behavior over the last 7 years. You just don't like the fact that the tables got turned on you. Cry me a river. You lost your right to expect anything else the same minute you started yelling "No blood for oil". Yeah...that's not cynical at all. Please. Walking in? Yeah, he had no idea what was about to hit him. He walked right into it over and over. During? It didn't dawn on Obama until about halfway through. Then, it was too late. After? All you see is people like Buftex being lame, and trying to pretend like the last 7 years didn't happen. And, you had the MSNBC people having conniptions, realizing that their whole game plan was headed for the trash. Look, the outcome and the theme, especially in the foreign press, is clear: If you were an alien(on a long vacation, in a coma, etc., same story written multiple ways) and only saw that debate, you'd be thinking that Romney was the President, and Obama, the challenger. Romney was the boss, and Obama, the wanna-be.

Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would think that Mr. Bob "Close GITMO immediately, it's making the terrorists hate us" Schieffer would be unfair. I couldn't help but notice, after all of Schieffer's editorializing on that topic, Sunday after Sunday, that somehow he failed to find the question for Obama on it. Perhaps you can explain why Bob had nothing to say about it? Or, why you have nothing to say about it? After all, there is an executive order outstanding, right? Nothing about this clear insubordination by the Navy? Shouldn't they have shut it down 3.5 years ago?

See Chef? The loss of "Romney = Bush = War" is beginning to sink in. Feel the anger...and the frustration. It just took Buftex longer to get it, because he hasn't spent the last 4 days basing all his plans on it, like MSNBC people had. The first 10 minutes of MSNBC post-debate was hilarious.

Which beats the hell out of two weeks of "Romenywar!" and "Romney = Bush!" Nobody is going to care about the mumbling bumble!@#$ "he changed that policy from 2 years ago when he said, at this place, but then..." STFU...is what people will be saying back to that ad. "Romney = war" might have had a chance of getting them to pay attention. Now, it has no chance.

Hey, if your too dim to see what happened here...that's no my problem. Romney took away "Romney = Bush", one only had to watch the befuddlement of MSNBC after the debate, for proof of this. Their whole package of why "Romney = Bush", "let's have this paid Lt. Colonel come on and tell us why Romney = Bush", "let's discuss the serious implications of Romney taking us to war in Iran...because this is serious, and every American must take this seriously" ....all of it, their entire 2 weeks of programming.... ...is gone. They can't scare us with Romneywar anymore. Hehe...Romney hit Obama hard in the first few rounds, and then just hugged him the rest of the way. There was no space for Obama to get in a punch. Then Obama, again, tried to expand the debate into schools(in a foreign policy debate?) and all kinds of tangents. Romney, rather than taking a few shots that were open, stuck to the gameplan, and kept clinging to Obama, not letting him make any real points. Now, the Democrats here, and certainly on TV, are crying because the Romney strategy worked. He got what he wanted: no chance of Obama changing the trajectory of this race. Obama is polling at 47%. If he's still polling below 50...even if he is leading, in any poll. He loses. Period. Romney, correctly, did nothing to change that. Consider: If Romney was calling the plays at the end of the game yesterday: we would have won.

Well, I was waiting for any of them to tell me that Romney = Bush wasn't "the plan". Then, I was going to post this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-shadow-of-bush-looms-over-foreign-policy-debate/2012/10/22/3e48bd2e-1c33-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_blog.html ...and laugh at them. But, I think they decided to quit fighting the obvious. Some people, who work for the old media, won't tip the hand, because they are about "gravitas" and "ratings leader" etc. Some other people are in the internet business, bloggers in this case, and they figure that they should post the gameplan, because if they get it out there, and are right, they look like geniuses, and they will get the internet traffic.

Yeah...you're being "sincere" In a pig's ass. IF Romney had come out and said anything even close to "attack Iran" you'd have been hollering "War Monger!" all day tomorrow and for the next 2 weeks. Now, he took that away from you...and you are talking about waffling? No. Not walking into your lame trap is what happened. The only reason Obama is in office right now is because of the political game you played with the Iraq War. When Bush tried to be sincere, you screamed at him for lying. Don't come and tell me you're being sincere now. I write this, as I watch an MSNBC hack stuttering through a "could have/might have, had he said this, had he said that, then" bumble!@#$. He had nothing to say, but lamenting about how his talking points would have worked, had Romney done what he expected. You and your ilk have been outplayed. Grow up and deal with it. This is major league politics, and Romney just showed all of you just how big of a rookie your guy is....again. Yes, the same CBS "poll" that had Romney only winning the 1st debate by 3-5 points? The only thing that matters is: Romney just took away any chance you had of turning this election around, by taking away the #1 issue you were going to go with: scaring everybody with Romney = War. Everything else is babble.

Yeah. It was that, or have all of you demagoging him tomorrow over "taking us to war in Iran". He know your game from the Iraq War, he knows the rules. Don't get pissed at him because he plays it better than you do. Of course, Romney just took away 95% of Chris Tingle's planned remarks, and Chris is frustrated. Just look at them: they are all frustrated. :lol: They had a plan, that was clearly coordinated with the Obama campaign.... ....and it ain't gonna work. Matthews is just having an 8th grade girl "I hate her, I hate her, I hate her" moment. All these big tears over the fact that Ds won't be able to call Romney Bush 2 tomorrow. That's what you wanted, and now you can't do it. Well, you can try, and some of the columnists will miss the memo, and just go ahead with the outline they got from he Obama campaign 3 days ago. Bust most won't. Sorry kids, you were outplayed. Your strategy was pedestrian and transparent. The Romney campaign saw right through it...and now you're pissed because it didn't work. Boo Hooo!

Bah....you beat me to it! I was looking up the Roman Numerals to make sure I had it right.

Anybody who comes away from this saying that "Obama won" is delusional or lying to themselves and others. He's all over the place, rambling, etc. I am staying with him, but it ain't easy. Romney is the better guy in a meeting. Obama is the "only 15 mins left in the meeting, YES!" guy.

Interesting, Scheiffer saying "we already know the President's position on drones". Is that because he wants to move things along, wants to spare Obama another rambling response, or because he's trying to give Romney more time(since Romney is clearly behind in terms of time spoken?)

Yeah. Obama has done a good job explaining what he has done. He has, whether you like it or not. But, Obama had no defense for what he hasn't done, like the missile defense thing going south in Poland, Iran in general, etc. And Romney is landing punches there that keep hurting Obama.

Dude...even Scheiffer can't save Obama. He only put in a half-hearted attempt, but he knows good TV when he sees it. His TV newsman personality won't allow him to shut Romney down. Obama is rambling...reeling still from Romney's line.

Hehe....you want to talk about lines? Really? That "we don't dictate we free from dictators" line is THE soundbite from this debate. Obama....responds with nothing sandwich.

Romney has landed some real punches on Obama. If you can't see that, then you are affected. At the same time, Obama has done a good job of explaining what he has done, and why. The problem for Obama lies in the difference between what he has done, and what needed to be done. Romney, as he is doing right now with the Iran Green party thing, is scoring all his points in that difference. And, now...Obama goes for the personal attack? Nothing indicates losing more than that. Good luck!

hehe...Obama better hope those reports aren't true. Schieffer just put him on the spot on that. Now, if anything at all comes out...or...a certain CIA officer or manager is pissed because Obama tried to hang Libya on them...look out.

So how do you think this is going for Obama, really? You think that line, which was an absurd response to Romney's point, gets him somewhere, with the voters who aren't watching football?

The Obama budget...that has gotten 0 votes in both the house and senate all 3 times it was sent? That budget? Yeah, it's not driven by anybody Barry. But Valerie Jarrett. Let's talk about her, and why she rates a Secret Service detail. EDIT: Back to the budget again? Back to the Navy? Ridiculous. Navy bean counting? That's your answer?

Can't believe that Obama has taken this long to talk about "race to the top", on a night that supposed to be about foreign policy, and that is probably going to be the worst rated of the debates. That would have been a good point in the first debate. Now? It's stupid, and, now, Romney is countering with his record...and it is HIS. Scheiffer has lost control. And, I don't see how that's bad. Obama wanted to "broaden the debate" and now Romney is punishing him for it.

If all we truly needed from the wealthy was...a little bit more...then why all the fuss? Does anybody honestly believe that what we need from the wealthy = how much spending we have to cut, or that there is some happy medium here?

Wow...hey Newb...ills: if you want to call those 3rd grade responses...talking about Poland, etc. You are a Newb.

Romney is handling this well. Not exploiting tragedy, talking about higher purpose, and basically deflecting Obama's attacks, or making the attacks themselves an issue. Unless something really awful happens, this debate will either be a + or nothing for Romney.

Look at this thread: most of the usual suspects in a thread like this...aren't here.