The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

He thought that he had Obama on the run, he thought he could call him out there and then and score a blow... right up until the moderator fact-checked him on the spot.

That was good to see.

[Tornado]

So, watched the highlights. There has to be a line between "falling asleep during the debate" like Lehrer and actively interfering with the answers (but not all of them, I noticed... Where was the fact checking on Obama saying Romney wanted Detroit to go bankrupt?). And I'd like to think that the moderator's job in a debate is more to keep the candidates from getting in each other's faces and shouting above each other anyway. I know that town hall debates tend to be a lot more tense than other kinds, but damn. Even some of the people in the audience looked uncomfortable with what was going on. Just call back the second guy for the last debate.

Also find it interesting just how much Obama wants to turn the election into one of class warfare. That suggests to me that he isn't as confident in getting the swing vote as he was in 2008. I don't think that he went as far as Romney did a couple times, bringing it up to try to dodge a question; but "LOL UR RICH" is not actually an answer to, say, "Do you actually know where your own investments are?". The 47% thing is going to be something that dogs Romney for the entire election (as well it should), but that isn't even what Obama was referring to it seems until the end.

Also, the Detroit thing: He should probably just let it go. I can't imagine making it so well known that "Yeah, Government Motors? That was my thing." is really much of a feather in his cap; and the only place it is really going to make much of an impact on (Michigan) was already probably going to vote for Obama anyway. He's not really doing many favors drawing attention to it in the first place, and if Romney wanted to go on the offensive over that specifically because Obama won't let it go... it wouldn't turn out very nice for Obama purely because what Obama is presenting it as isn't actually the case.

I have a feeling that a lot of people will have agreed wholeheartedly with Obama when he turned to Romney and told him to his face that his politicizing of the Libya killings last month was deeply offensive. That was such a badass moment.

Or just a hypocritical one. Romney wasn't prepared for that answer then, but I'm quite sure a response that will come up for the foreign policy debate. Politicizing tragedies is basically what the office of the President does. It's all a matter of whether or not doing so is justified in the end.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Tornado

[Patticus]

Of course Romney will arrive at the final debate armed with fresh rebuttals and buckets of BS on foreign policy, I'd be dumbfounded if he didn't at this stage, but his missteps in last night's debate on Libya may have provided Obama with some fresh bitch slaps of his own for the next debate.

I would hesitate to try to argue with you over your point that Obama was hypocritical because politicizing tragedies is what presidents do (I personally don't think Obama has done much politicizing of US deaths at all, but I'm sure you'll have some examples on-hand), but I will say this: If Mitt tries to make that same point, he will smear himself in the process, because he'll be admitting to tens of millions of Americans that he'll do lots of politicizing of US deaths in foreign lands too.

It's a more dangerous debate next week for Romney than the president. Last night, Obama didn't throw Hillary Clinton under the bus and let her take the heat as she had tried to do, he manned up on live TV and took responsibility for the deadly event, and he turned his greatest foreign policy weakness into a strength. If he can keep that up next week, Romney will look even more lost than Ryan did and it'll all be over for that shameless bastard.

[-Robin-]

While the debate was going on, Green Party nominee Jill Stein and her running mate, Cheri Honkala, were arrested outside the university for disorderly conduct. They displayed civil disobedience on the streets about not being allowed in and having a chance to debate, blocking traffic in the process. They were released at midnight.

I'm not a Green Party person, but I would like to see other party candidates getting the chance to debate the others in the future, It could bring in a whole slew of issues not covered yet.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Joshua

[Tornado]

As far as tragedies are concerned, I didn't specifically mean deaths, just to let you know; and you're correct that he would be smearing himself in the process unless he showed a level of political aptitude that I'm fairly sure he doesn't have. But the question is more "Could he do it in a way that most voters don't catch" rather than "Can he do it in a way that won't incriminate himself." If he shows up at the debate and says "look at all this awful shit Obama has done despite what he said last time" and he does it well enough, it wouldn't matter how badly he paints himself in the process (or, to be frank, how honest what he says was in the first place) because people won't remember that.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Tornado

[Patticus]

I wouldn't put it past him to try to do that, so Obama and his campaign team should be preparing facts and rhetoric to fact-check, rebut, counter or otherwise reveal to the viewing public Mitt's little shenanigans.

Obama's strong suit is still foreign policy, despite all the hoohah of the past few months. I'm confident that he'll be able to put down Mr. Romney quite effectively come Monday night.

Edit: http://www.romneybindersgame.com/

Also:

Edit Again: Gallup's daily tracking poll has Romney 7 points ahead, but every other poll is saying that it's almost tied, with Obama having a slim lead in several of the key states. FiveThirtyEight covers this anomalous and odd upswing for Romney in some detail, and they make a good case for taking Gallup in particular with a pinch of salt when they disagree with everyone by such a margin, but I'm just wondering what you guys think, since Gallup seems to be well respected around here.

[turbojet]

That first debate was a fucking killer. Jesus.

[Tornado]

Well, I think it was always going to come down to the first and last debates, if only because those would be the only two that most people watch. I'm not surprised if Obama is still trailing or tied in most polls when he did have a commanding lead going into them if the first one is the only one anyone watched (even if it was only because "Gonna watch me some CSI toni- SHIT the debates are on instead"); and when I was reading up the summaries of Tuesday's debate I was seeing a lot of "Obama brought his A-Game this time, but it doesn't matter much after what happened the first time."

Edited October 19, 2012 by Tornado

[Patticus]

Around 67 million watched the first debate, and about 50-odd million the VP debate. Any numbers for the last one? I'd expect it'd be up there with the first two, given the whole 'rematch' angle advertisers were pimping day and night in commercials.

I can't imagine that the last debate will be terribly influential, given how people care more about domestic issues a lot more than the foreign policy issues that'll be under discussion on Monday, but maybe it will still have an impact; another strong showing for Obama might give him back some of his lost momentum, move the polls back in his direction and see Romney's chances start to slip away. Maybe.

Edit: President Obama diagnoses Mitt Romney with ‘Romnesia’:

I love this man.

[Autosaver]

Mitt Romney's tax plan leaked.

[TheGerkuman]

Well, that's one good thing I can say about Mitt. What lovely handwriting.

[SuperStingray]

President Obama diagnoses Mitt Romney with ‘Romnesia’:

I love this man.

I think this is the campaign's most brilliant move in ages. It has the succinctness and tweetabilty of a slogan, the creativity to let Obama call Romney a liar while circumventing the need to outright use the word "liar," and the appeal to swings states of a Jeff Foxworthy redneck joke.

Edited October 19, 2012 by SuperStingray

[Stacy]

Well, that's one good thing I can say about Mitt. What lovely handwriting.

Who says its his? It could be specially trained Monkeys!

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Who says its his? It could be specially trained Monkeys!

[Carbo]

Mitt Romney's tax plan leaked.

There's also this little gem

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

[turbojet]

There's also this little gem

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

[Patticus]

What exactly do you intend to protest, Turbo? The CIA requesting that it be able to expand its drone fleet? Guantanamo's continued existence? Inaction on Syria? The state's poor handling of Libya? The Patriot Act and NDAA?

Fox News fails to see the funny side of 'Romnesia': http://politics.blog...romney-policies

"President Obama has failed to put forward a second-term agenda - and when you don't have a plan to run on, you stoop to scare tactics." - Barbara Comstock

Surely that's more applicable to the Romney campaign?

When a court rules in their favor, it's a wise decision by a smart judge.

When a court rules against them, it's judicial activism by a partisan judge.

When the Obama campaign brings up anything negative about Romney, they're fear-mongering because they have no record to run on.

When the Romney campaign brings up anything negative about Obama, they're expressing the legitimate doubts and worries of the people.

As Jon Stewart so wonderfully summed it up, "The biggest problem with the denizens of Bullshit Mountain [wealthy Republicans and their propagandists], is they act like their shit don't stink. If they have success, they built it. If they failed, the government ruined it for them. If they get a break, they deserve it. If you get a break, it's a handout and an entitlement. It's a baffling, willfully blind cognitive dissonance."

Edit: Has the Iranian leadership just handed President Obama the next debate, and perhaps even the election?

As reported by the New York Times a few minutes ago, “U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks”.

These proposed one-on-one negotiations concerning Iran’s nuclear program between the United States and Iran will be a historic first and according to Obama administration officials, could be the result of a last-ditch effort on the part of Iran to avert a preemptive military strike against themselves.

You can click here to read the full New York Times story.

One must ask themselves after all this time, why exactly Iran has decided to enter into an agreement for talks now.

Consider this:

• Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, along with other top GOP officials, has been pushing for a stronger approach to the Iran problem and have been very vocal about supporting the idea of military action.
  
  Mitt Romney has also been pushing the idea that Pres. Obama has pushed Israel ‘under the bus’ for not supporting their talk of a preemptive strive against Iran – basically yesterday.
  
  The debates are pretty much a draw so far with foreign policy being the topic for the last debate and Obama’s only real weaknesses being pushed by Romney and the GOP are the recent Libyan incident, Iran, and the GOP’s perceived lack of enough support by the administation for Israel in regards to Iran.
  
  Now, with all that in mind and with all the bluster being tossed about by Romney regarding entering a war with Iran, were I Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, I would be doing everything I could to insure Obama’s reelection.
  
  So now consider this:
  
  
  • This new option was proposed late on Saturday, meaning global media will not pick it up completely until tomorrow – Sunday. That means that the story will be the main headliner all day Monday….. It will be on all all the daytime and evening news magazines shows, the pundits will all be buzzing about it.
    
    

Monday is the night of the last presidential debate, and low and behold, the topic is foreign policy.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election and it is far from clear whether Pres. Obama’s opponent would go through with those negotiations were he to win.

However this plays out, the simple truth of the matter is that Pres. Obama can now make the case that his policies regarding Iran and Israel have led to a historic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major leaders to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Iran just may have handed the election to President Obama. It is certainly something to consider.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/10/breaking-news-iran-agrees-to-nuclear-talks-for-first-time-ever/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/world/iran-said-ready-to-talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?emc=na&_r=1&

[Tornado]

That article is... weird. It builds it up as if the Iranian government is afraid of Romney coming to power and shooting their asses at the slightest provocation (which, joke's on them. Obama, or perhaps maybe Hilary, would be perfectly content with going at a shooting war with them so long as an actual invasion didn't happen) so they are going to talk it out with Obama over it.

But then it says that Obama is the one who caused this change of heart out of the blue? I'm... just not seeing the political capital here. At least not the way the article is presenting it.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Tornado

[Patticus]

Could there not be multiple causes of this change of heart? The accumulated impact of the sanctions, the prospect of a very unfriendly Republican administration coming to power (one full up with Bush-era neo-con hawks who would love a fresh conflict), the realization that while Obama might be perfectly content to have a shooting match if it comes down to it, he has also proven quite open to diplomacy in the past. Plus, the current Ayatollah is a moderate, unlike Ahmadinejad, so you can pretty well ignore his fiery rhetoric at the UN. For the time being.

There is political capital here for both candidates - Obama can claim his policies are effective and have avoided a potentially nasty military clash that might have lit the whole region up, while Romney can lay claim to the idea that he'd be great for national security because the Iranians are already running scared to "soft touch Obama".

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Wouldn't getting into a war with Iran provoke Russia or at the very least China? I mean, considering that the President of Iran is only a figurehead, I'm not worried too much since the Supreme Leader's not that stupid to incite war. But still, just something I figured I'd ask.

[Patticus]

Of course it would, but Mitt's not a fan of either country, openly calling Russia "America's number one geopolitical foe," and promising to "crack down on cheating China."

Cold War 2 and a nasty new trade war. Wonderful. Just what we all need.

[Stacy]

Wouldn't getting into a war with Iran provoke Russia or at the very least China? I mean, considering that the President of Iran is only a figurehead, I'm not worried too much since the Supreme Leader's not that stupid to incite war. But still, just something I figured I'd ask.

Iran should be a secondary thing to worry about for both Obama and Romney.

Syria is a powder-keg right now it doesn't help that its been clashing with Turkey even though its own country is pretty much at war with itself not to mention China and Russia have been interfering in Syria (Not that we and the US aren't either).

Also there was that bomb attack in Beirut that killed an anti-Syrian intelligence officer.

I hope all this doesn't lead to a wider conflict that no doubt we would all get roped into.

Edited October 21, 2012 by BW199148

[Mr. Taxi]

Theoretically, getting into a war with Iran is the worst move anyone can do at the moment. It's not just that it's a tough opponent, but all the previous wars have pretty much empowered Iran - especially the Iraq War. Iran stands as the biggest power in the region and gettingo into a catfight with them would make all of the Middle East go into a rampage.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Pretty sure Israel can contest that position in the Middle East, or at the very least its a potentially volatile nation none of the others would dare pick a fight with unless they want to go down with them. Considering how notorious their Mossad is at carrying out assassinations, and how (from what I've heard) they were about to consider going nuclear towards a past threat, Iran has some contest here.

Of course, given how limited my knowledge is here, I wouldn't doubt if I was wrong. Though I'm less worried about Iran's power in the region against a superpower like the US. I'd be more worried about an attack on Iran provoking rising superpowers like China coming to their aid, or creating an international shitstorm that would cause the US a lot more hell than ever.

Either way, I'm pretty sure we'd be smart enough not to be provoking anyone period. Although Rommey's got me worried with his views towards China and Russia. The guy sounds like he's still stuck in the Cold War, or at the very least he'd be willing to start a whole new one.

Edited October 21, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Patticus]

Leaving the subject of the Middle East for a moment...

Apparently, according to one of the pundits on ABC this morning, in the final debate (tomorrow), whomever can tie the economy to foreign policy as JFK once did, will score a big blow on his opponent. Is there any truth to this assertion? And doesn't that all depend on the coin toss at the start of the debate?

Also, news which could impact the election:

Gas Prices Expected to Plunge After Reaching Record Highs

http://abcnews.go.co...-highs-17527989

Voters are going to like that, and as most voters seem to think the President controls the price of gas (certainly they blame him whenever the price shoots up), this might have a small favorable impact on Obama's poll numbers from here on out.

You know the guy employed by the Republicans who got caught dumping voter registration forms in the bin? He won't be charged.