Rob's House Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Mishandling a message (compared btw to Romney's handling of everything related to this) in an election year matched up w/ Obama's foreign policy record as a whole makes the realm of foreign policy as a whole a winner for Repubs? Every surrogate on Fox and CNN for Romney doubling down on defending the act of terror issue on behalf of Romney. That's b/c despite being a great sound bite for Obama, the reality is he did refuse to acknowledge the attack as a pre-planned terrorist attack, as opposed to spontaneous "act of terror" by angry protestors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I give the win to the President in a venue that favored the President. I got what I expected. I'm waiting for an apex before I dump all equities leading into Nov. 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Nice to have the President show some sack, especially on the Libya stuff. Both of these men are competent, I am sure what the debate proves.... it comes down to the platform and policies, what do you think is best... I will enjoy watching MSNBC, then switching to Fox, then back, then back again.... it will entertain me!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Twitter stats: Economy #1 That's good for Romney...unless all of those tweets are from WH sock puppet accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 NBC is dutifully doing Obama's dirty work. Yes, you are a victim of an unfair media. Your natural rights are being violated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 GANGBANGERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Mishandling a message (compared btw to Romney's handling of everything related to this) in an election year matched up w/ Obama's foreign policy record as a whole makes the realm of foreign policy as a whole a winner for Repubs? Every surrogate on Fox and CNN for Romney doubling down on defending the act of terror issue on behalf of Romney. Krauthammer doing his best to keep Libya in the game. Repubs will keep this alive for Romney certainly leading into next week. Also over under "Israel" being mentioned next week is at 50 IMO...but the entire post debate coverage on Fox is Libya that signals problems Uh...yeah? It's campaigning. Perception and sales is what matters. Personally...I consider all the campaign **** to be basically entertainment, and base my opinions on whatever "facts" I can glean from whatever reporting I find. But most people are going to buy the sizzle, not the steak, so to speak. And don't kid yourself...you're buying the sizzle, too. Less so than most, but you are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 That's b/c despite being a great sound bite for Obama, the reality is he did refuse to acknowledge the attack as a pre-planned terrorist attack, as opposed to spontaneous "act of terror" by angry protestors. I fully accept this is an issue where partisan feelings (even if not "Repub" or "Dem" straight up or whatever) effects how you interpret this. Willful act of terror, fixated on "pre planned," "attack period," "is the investigation too slow or is the region chaotic etc...all will effect anyone's view on this. Personally this attack and what I know on it, doesn't drive me to Mitt's foreign policy over Obama. Then again, everything Mitt has said is either ridiculous or the same as Obama while still somehow bashing him b/c of perceived "tough guy" attitude (which is ridiculous). If you believe had Mitt been President a few weeks ago he would have saved those people, that's your opinion. I don't believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Uh...yeah? It's campaigning. Perception and sales is what matters. Personally...I consider all the campaign **** to be basically entertainment, and base my opinions on whatever "facts" I can glean from whatever reporting I find. But most people are going to buy the sizzle, not the steak, so to speak. And don't kid yourself...you're buying the sizzle, too. Less so than most, but you are... Well, you are so much smarter than most people, you know what most people should want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Uh...yeah? It's campaigning. Perception and sales is what matters. Personally...I consider all the campaign **** to be basically entertainment, and base my opinions on whatever "facts" I can glean from whatever reporting I find. But most people are going to buy the sizzle, not the steak, so to speak. And don't kid yourself...you're buying the sizzle, too. Less so than most, but you are... No doubt, and so are you. It's all sizzle. It's not two men of substance it's two private organizations of sizzle. NOthing more. But it's entertaining. Hell I was at a GOP fundraiser last night....it was fun..and it was sizzle and there's nothing more desirable than to take the sizzle there and present it to everyone that both sides want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Uh...yeah? It's campaigning. Perception and sales is what matters. Personally...I consider all the campaign **** to be basically entertainment, and base my opinions on whatever "facts" I can glean from whatever reporting I find. But most people are going to buy the sizzle, not the steak, so to speak. And don't kid yourself...you're buying the sizzle, too. Less so than most, but you are... Or, how is the entire "youtube did it" thing... ...not campaigning? That entire thing was purposeful. It was no accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 If you believe had Mitt been President a few weeks ago he would have saved those people, that's your opinion. I don't believe that. Anyone who does is retarded. And the same brand of retarded as those that think Bush could have stopped 9/11 if he'd had his August 6 brief in the Oval Office instead of Texas. That's just not at all how the government works. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I give the win to the President in a venue that favored the President. I got what I expected. I'm waiting for an apex before I dump all equities leading into Nov. 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Anyone who does is retarded. And the same brand of retarded as those that think Bush could have stopped 9/11 if he'd had his August 6 brief in the Oval Office instead of Texas. That's just not at all how the government works. Period. Agree on both points. I mean I know I'm an Obama supporter over Mitt...but you can search...I've consistently "defended" Bush on those points and never dig into the man like many Repubs think all Dems do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Or, how is the entire "youtube did it" thing... Which should have been Romney's response to Candy, when she quoted the transcript (which she had because...?) "Yes, he did say 'act of terror'." "He also blamed a YouTube video, and had the man who created it arrested..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I fully accept this is an issue where partisan feelings (even if not "Repub" or "Dem" straight up or whatever) effects how you interpret this. Willful act of terror, fixated on "pre planned," "attack period," "is the investigation too slow or is the region chaotic etc...all will effect anyone's view on this. Personally this attack and what I know on it, doesn't drive me to Mitt's foreign policy over Obama. Then again, everything Mitt has said is either ridiculous or the same as Obama while still somehow bashing him b/c of perceived "tough guy" attitude (which is ridiculous). If you believe had Mitt been President a few weeks ago he would have saved those people, that's your opinion. I don't believe that. Don't be an ass. It's not a matter of Obama not stopping it. It's a matter of his team not coming clean on it. Does this by itself say all that needs to be said about foreign policy? Obviously not. But are you honestly saying that the President sitting on that info, stonewalling the population, & riding off to party w/ Jay-Z in the immediate aftermath is irrelevant? If it was Bush would it be irrelevant? Who's really wearing the partisan glasses here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I am in awe at Repub surrogates keeping with this "unraveling" theme. When asked why...they can't answer...they should stop saying this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Agree on both points. I mean I know I'm an Obama supporter over Mitt...but you can search...I've consistently "defended" Bush on those points and never dig into the man like many Repubs think all Dems do Same here. I dislike Obama, I'm not shy about it. But I can articulate enough actual reasons and examples as to why that I don't need to go inventing nonsensical ones. And in fact, the nonsensical ones really piss me off, because then I have to explain "no, that's not how the world works," while the little voice in the back of my head is screaming "!@#$ you, you !@#$s, for making me defend Obama!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Weird...Fox focus group...acting like Romney did a lot better than I thought he did. Perhaps repeating those econ stats, over and over, is a lot more powerful for them. Cause...it's not like I don't hear it here every damn day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Which should have been Romney's response to Candy, when she quoted the transcript (which she had because...?) "Yes, he did say 'act of terror'." "He also blamed a YouTube video, and had the man who created it arrested..." That's the point. He can still come back to it. A zinger in a debate does not foreclose the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts