October 22, 2012

Presidential debate comment thread

Tell me about it.

Is it Baroque O'Blarney overwhelming the Underperformin' Mormon? Or Mathemagical Mitt exposing the Big Oh?

And how many more wars do we need to start?

Which one acted like he was in the lead in the election?

237 comments:

1 – 200 of 237   Newer›   Newest»
a very knowing American said...

Looks like iSteve is finally having an impact on the campaign.

"Both Candidates Announcing Unmitigated Support For Eugenics Virtually Only Way Tonight's Debate Will Matter At All" (From The Onion)

Dahlia said...

I'm sitting this one out; it would be too painful to sit through. Obama's terrible, yet Mitt cannot nail him hamstrung as he is by neoconservatism.

Truth said...

All is not lost, ladies and germs, Donnie-Tee has another BOMBSHELL to drop about Barry the Usurper!

Hapalong Cassidy said...

I'm sitting this one out too. With all the crap happening on the domestic front with jobs and the economy, it looks like the powers that be have decided that this debate will be solely on foreign policy. Look, we the electorate have resigned ourselves to the fact that whoever is elected will continue to pursue an interventionist foreign policy. There's no need to rub our noses in it.

Zazooba said...

I managed to watch 45 seconds of it, then couldn't take any more.

I've done my part

Londoner said...

The semiotics of the neckwear on show are mildly interesting: solid blue for Obama (the commenters on the recent thread were absolutely right - the appropriation of blue by the Democrats is a calculated, shameless grab for the colour of sobriety, continuity and traditionalism, its shamelessness matched only by the stupidity of the Republicans in going along with it and agreeing to be ghettoised as the "red" party.

Romney: thick red and thin blue stripes - a hint that he kind of agrees, but knows it's far too late to dissociate himself from the red.

Schieffer: same as Romney but with thin white stripes. A good all-American necktie.

Matra said...

With Monday Night Football and a NLCS game 7 I don't suppose there'll be many male viewers. Being about foreign policy there might not be many female viewers either.

Anonymous said...

Romney is surprisingly dovish. Hmmm...

Maybe we don't need to start any more wars.

Enoch Powell said...

I really find it impossible to listen to Obama. It's like watching someone eat a moose turd pie and pretend he likes it when Obama speaks.

It's a frightening symptom of our social pathology that so many White people proclaimed Obama brilliant and eloquent based on his teleprompter reading style.

How was that possible? Obama stutters and smacks and bites off his words. His tone oozes condescension. He comes across as creepily effeminate.

How can so many people lie to themselves? They will never wake up.

Anonymous said...

Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?

A: Their lips are moving.

e.d.

Anonymous said...

I hate Republican foreign policy. It has been completely hijacked by the neocons (aka "Scots-Irish").

Anonymous said...

Obama speaks in little bursts, each with a ridiculous rising inflection at the end, oversized head bobbing around comically. It is exhausting to listen to and watch. He's incredibly inarticulate.

Romney ain't nothing special, but at least he seems like a relatively normal guy who talks like a relatively normal guy.

Zazooba said...

Pretty quiet in here.

I sense profound disinterest.

Anonymous said...

It would appear that they agree on everything.

Anonymous said...

Watching Obama reminds me of David Icke's reptilian conspiracy theory.

He looks like an alien lizard.

Thomas O. Meehan said...

The degree of antagonism if funny considering the lack of real difference. They are both internationalists with little understanding of the Middle East or Europe. we're well into the broadcast and I have yet to hear the term, National Interest. Romney is really poor at coming back at Obama's obvious gaffs.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else hoping that Obama set himself up for an extremely ironic quadaffy-ing with that bayonet comment?

Mr. Anon said...

I didn't see the debate you're talking about. However, while channel surfing, I came across what appeared to be a debate between two candidates for the Premiership of Israel. One of them (darker fellow, must be a Sabra) was boasting about how he had virtually destroyed the economy of Iran. That'll show em'. The other guy may as well have been Cato the Elder talking about Carthage.

Let me know our OUR presidential debate went, if anyone gets a glimpse of it.

DPG said...

Watched about 15 minutes. On Israel, they would both get Israel's back. On Iran, they would both sanction Iran longer and harder than the other. Obama will reduce the size of the Navy because we don't need bayonets and horses anymore.

Johnny W. said...

NPR here in Miami had a pre-debate debate where some Hispanic Dem was going on about how America won't be able to compete with "India's first class education system". I couldn't last a second longer.

WMarkW said...

The only debate was who'd be better at all the things they agree on.

Anonymous said...

Is not running the U.S. a man's business? Why do both candidates run into 'mommy's' arms after the debate like children in a dance contest.

Gilbert P.

TontoBubbaGoldstein said...

"I'm sitting this one out; it would be too painful to sit through. Obama's terrible, yet Mitt cannot nail him hamstrung as he is by neoconservatism."

Dahlia,
I did watch it. Your prediction was 100% correct.

Anonymous said...

obama kicked romneys ass all over the place tonight

Anonymous said...

That 12-minute digression into a soliloquy on the joys of "Man's Country" was awkward. Other than that, just your usual presidential debate.

Whiskey said...

Obama gave a lawyerly answer. Stand with Israel = strongly worded letter of regret, no military action.

Obama is stupid. A navy is more than just carriers, they need lots of support/protective ships, a carrier without its carrier groups is toast. The best way to preserve peace is have a massive navy, that no group of people will think of challenging. A 700 ship navy seen with Reagan will get ... Reagan's level of peace. Which overall was pretty good. I'd take the 1980's any day of the week.

pat said...

I am not the universal expert here on debaring. I was the captain of my debate team (George Mason) but there have been hundreds of such in the years since - and many of them have had better won-lost records. But they are silent. I'll speak for them.

This is the secret of how to win debates - go to the canned speech as soon a possible.

Jay Leno undersatnds this. As libs are all well and good. It takesa an exceptional talent to be able to say anything relevant under the presssure of a live performance.

Romney I thought did very well in this regard. Several times he slipped almost impercerpibly into a memorized line of argument. He did as well as I can imagine anyone doing.

That's the ground game. On the 10,000 foot strategic game Romney also did well. I had predicted that he would cite his five sons as a reason why he favored peace, sort of like Mel Gibsons speech in the first reel of "The Patriot". But he didn't. I expect he didn't get the chance. He certainly proclaimed for peace. That was a win. Strength and peace - big winner.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

Obama said something about Romney's foreign policy like, "The 1980's are calling and they want their foreign policy back."

That was funny because it was true. And because it gives me a glimmer of hope that while Big O is staying up late at night, he's checking iSteve for ideas between cigarette drags.

- Honest American Prole

Anonymous said...

Whiskey:
A 700 ship navy seen with Reagan will get ... Reagan's level of peace. Which overall was pretty good. I'd take the 1980's any day of the week.

Are you willing to pay for it, either with increased taxes or increased federal debt?

Anonymous said...

http://news.yahoo.com/disney-defends-hispanic-influenced-princess-222719393.html

(Off topic, but hits some isteve buttons)

Anonymous said...

"I'm sitting this one out; it would be too painful to sit through. Obama's terrible, yet Mitt cannot nail him hamstrung as he is by neoconservatism."

Agreed, and this is actually what happened.

The MSM is calling this debate for Obama, and I have to agree. The neocons have truly screwed Republican foreign policy.

That said, someone in the Obama campaign is obviously reading iSteve because Obama quoted Steve almost word-for-word when he said: "The 1980's are calling and they want their foreign policy back."

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

A navy is more than just carriers, they need lots of support/protective ships, a carrier without its carrier groups is toast."

A carrier group plus one MIRVed warhead is toast. In a real war with a serious adversary (not our current extended campaign of blowing up brown people) carriers would be obsolete. They may as well be used for tap-dance routines, like those old battleships in 1940s musicals.

hailtoyou said...

48% say Ol’ Barry Hussein won

CNN poll of Debate Watchers (scientific poll)

Anonymous said...

A 700 ship navy seen with Reagan will get ... Reagan's level of peace. Which overall was pretty good. I'd take the 1980's any day of the week.

So you'd take something like the Cold War against a superpower like the USSR that dominates half the world?

Anonymous said...

I had predicted that he would cite his five sons as a reason why he favored peace, sort of like Mel Gibsons speech in the first reel of "The Patriot". But he didn't. I expect he didn't get the chance. He certainly proclaimed for peace. That was a win. Strength and peace - big winner.

Yes, that would work if we were in a normal country and our political discourse hadn't been completely poisoned by neocon warmongering.

hailtoyou said...

Obama mentioned space at one point. It's too bad they didn't pursue that.

Possible talking points:
(1) We need to make NASA look more like America, with aggressive race quotas. (2) We need a team of Gay Black Astronauts on the moon. HOPE/CHANGE.

Break through the racist glass ceiling of the space industry!

Svigor said...

All is not lost, ladies and germs, Donnie-Tee has another BOMBSHELL to drop about Barry the Usurper!

Haha, did you mean to post that one at Daily Kos? I bet Romney's hoping the Donald has a myocardial infarction before he can reveal his "big secret."

Svigor said...

Romney's acting like he's in the lead.

0bama's acting like he's behind.

Hmmm...

Anonymous said...

Romney out-Obama-ud? Obama. Buchanan was on the radio this afternoon saying that Romney needed to avoid being seen as bellicose, and Buchanan was on Fox tonight saying that Romney avoided looking like a hawk - he wins. If he followed the zeitgeist at Fox he would have lost.

Obama really gained nothing, he was unquotable. He made a condescending remark about bayonets, Romney let it pass implying it was unworthy of a response.

I didn't follow it too closely because an hour and a half of gaff avoidance is not as interesting as a train wreck. It was said that Romney's advisers said his strategy was his own. I think it was a good one - he didn't lose and Obama wore a feminist-level look of irritation the whole debate.

Anonymous said...

Obama speaks in little bursts, each with a ridiculous rising inflection at the end, oversized head bobbing around comically.

Actually his head is undersized. But it's a very nicely shaped. Like a light bulb.

Svigor said...

Battlegroundwatch.com had a live thread on this. My favorite comment was eerily similar to the iSteve 0bama troll's after the first debate:

jvnvch
Posted October 22, 2012 at 11:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

This was like a Muhammad Ali fight. Romney let President Obama punch himself out. Obama was repeatedly swinging for the knockout, but failing to connect, while Romney rope-a-doped most of the time, smiling and inviting more punches, but declining to get into a brawl. At the end, Romney came on strong, like Ali, and won the fight.

I guess the polls will tell.

Anonymous said...

On general tone I think Romney did a good job as not comming off as a warmongering idiot in the vein of Bush or McCain, which is what he had to do and was good at presenting the "big picture" issues and interjecting the economy as much as possible. Even Pat Buchanan seemed to like Romeny's positions better than he had expected going in. Obama seemed to lose himself in details and came accross as petty. I don't see the win that some of the commentors here were refering to.

Even more important than what was said, however, I think the body language told a lot about the debate, particularly when the camera showed the candidates while the other was speaking. Romney came accross as affable and looked bemused when Obama was talking without being smug. At times he almost looked like he had pity for Obama as one would have for a bumbling, malicious child frustrated and in over his head. Obama, on the other hand, came off as boastful and arrogant (I've never heard a candidate use the words "I" and "me" so much and I almost expected to yell "I put a cap in Bin Laden's ass") and looked angry throughout the debate, especially when Romney criticized him or scored points against him. He clearly comes accross as a man not used to being challenged or criticized. And it was not the look of a strong man's righteous indignation at unjust criticism either. Rather, it was the look of a catty and petulant aging homosexual wanting to hiss at someone who displeased his delicate sensibilities. I can't imagine this goes over well with most viewers, male or female. I was also struck with Obama's delicateness and effiminacy. Every time he would waive his hands around I couldn't help but notice how gracile his wrists and hands are. Under the padding of his suit he's positively a scrawny little man. What do you think he weighs? Maybe a buck thirtyfive on a 6'1.5" frame? Not an alpha male.

Svigor said...

Oh, about Intrade "odds" heavily favoring 0bama, the more I learn about Intrade, the less I trust it as any kind of election barometer. Anyone care to explain why it's worth paying attention to?

I'll need to know how much betting has been going on over time, for one thing. The way people make it sound, you buy shares (make a bet), and you're locked in. What, unless you can sell them off or something? So, what if all the gamblers jumped in early and bet what they have already? I guess they could hedge by buying Romney shares, so there's that.

And how much money are we talking? How big are the bets, and how many are there?

Svigor said...

I see a lot of comments that I've seen averaged in this one:

I thought it was a tale of two halves. Obama won the first half. He stayed on topic and I found Romney to be stammering and a little scattered. Perhaps nerves.

Just like a guy who knows he's going to win the presidency if he doesn't put his dick in the butter tray.

Anonymous said...

The MSM is calling this debate for Obama


No! I didn't see that one coming.

If the MSM didn't have their lips surgically attached to Obama's ass, maybe I'd care about their opinions.

Severn said...

It's a frightening symptom of our social pathology that so many White people proclaimed Obama brilliant and eloquent based on his teleprompter reading style.

How was that possible?



It's just one of those things "everyone knows" - black people are fantastic speakers. Who was it that called him "clean and articulate"? Biden? It sounds like a Bidenesque remark.

Severn said...

Annoy a journalist - vote Romney.

Anonymous said...

"I guess the polls will tell."

The polls are showing an overwhelming Obama victory this time, you delusional fool. The capacity of the iSteve commentariat to insulate themselves from reality never ceases to amuse.

peterike said...

"Are you willing to pay for it, either with increased taxes or increased federal debt?"

Not that I'm gung ho for a large navy, but paying is easy. You could cut a trillion from the Fed budget and nobody would even notice. Then the real cuts could begin.

CJ said...

...and I almost expected [him] to yell "I put a cap in Bin Laden's ass"...

LOL that's indeed the way it was. Also funny -- the moderator Bob Schieffer (who wasn't really too bad) actually said "Obama bin Laden".

This kind of debate isn't about scoring points the way college debating teams try to do; it's more like a job interview where the applicants try to appear competent and avoid saying anything off-putting to the selection committee. Obama appeared concerned with establishing an air of personal superiority, while Romney seemed concerned about explaining points. Romney also manged to avoid giving the impression he's itching to start some more wars; in fact he invoked "peace through strength" repeatedly. I have to think he comes out ahead in electoral terms.

Anonymous said...

Agree with the two halves theme.

Conventional wisdom is that Obama had to win this one pretty decisively in order to regain his momentum, and he didn't.

I noticed that Romney was getting a little more aggressive as the debate wore on. Obama seemed to noticeably repeat his talking points at the end, Romney was able to maneuver a little better.

Anonymous said...

The polls are showing an overwhelming Obama victory this time, you delusional fool.


I'll miss the Kossacks when they depart this site post election, in a river of tears.

Svigor said...

"I guess the polls will tell."

The polls are showing an overwhelming Obama victory this time, you delusional fool. The capacity of the iSteve commentariat to insulate themselves from reality never ceases to amuse.


Yeah I'm really waving my little Romney flag over here. I never expected him to win, but the ass-kicking 0's been taking in the polls led me to read up and I'm just calling it as I see it. No skin off my nose if the guy loses.

Lessee how much of a bump 0 gets for "winning" tonight, as I said. My prediction: 0 bump for the 0.

Svigor said...

And "overwhelming victory" for the 0 is the delusion. Excluding states where the 0's winning by less than the margin of error, Romney's ahead in EVs. Given the possibility of skewed polls, I wouldn't want to be in the 0's shoes right now. The only states I've predicted Romney taking are the ones where he was down by fewer than 2 points. Remember, undecideds break significantly for the challenger.

All of this is quite consistent with how each man played tonight's debate.

Beecher Asbury said...

Obama is stupid. A navy is more than just carriers, they need lots of support/protective ships, a carrier without its carrier groups is toast. The best way to preserve peace is have a massive navy, that no group of people will think of challenging. A 700 ship navy seen with Reagan will get ... Reagan's level of peace. Which overall was pretty good. I'd take the 1980's any day of the week.

What 700 ship navy are you talking about? Under Reagan the navy never exceeded 600.

Anonymous said...

700 ship navy seen with Reagan will get ... Reagan's level of peace. Which overall was pretty good. I'd take the 1980's any day of the week.

The early 80's were a shit-scary time if you were paying attention and knew what was going on. There was 'peace', but it's not a period you'd want to relive 10 times, because probably one of those times all hell would have broken loose. I recommend (other than to Whiskey) Hoffman's The Dead Hand, for a good treatment of this period, particularly August-November, 1983. While not as acute as the Cuban crisis, this situation could have been worse because the players in the Kremlin where pretty much all senile/paranoid. At least Khrushev had his wits about him.

I turned 14 that fall, and based on what I knew then, and what I know now about that time, I wouldn't go back to it for anything. I'll take today, thank you very much.

Svigor said...

More importantly, predictive power: Romney acted the way I predicted he would. And 0 acted like a guy who knows what Romney knows.

Svigor said...

I never expected him to win

Actually, I did tell a friend a couple months ago that Romney was going to win because of the economy - everyone's so tired of the 0, and even his base is blah. But I wasn't paying attention to any polls and I wasn't really predicting the race so much as I was taking the general national pulse.

Anonymous said...

Looked like Romney was the cool calm President and Obama was the challenger trying to land punches in order to swing voters.

Romney's tactics tonight tell us what his internals must say. The same for Obama.

Anonymous said...

Obama was better, Romney was playing safe(as a man who is leading tends to do). Romney also doesn't want to come across as a warmongering neocon.

Although, remember that Bush(Dubya) also campaigned on restraint in the 2000 election. We all know what happened after that.

What matters is the people who you staff your inner circle with, not the slogans you espouse. And Romney fails that test very badly, just as Bush did.

Also, on a sidenote, funny to watch Whiskey getting obliverated for his ignorance(yet again). Reagan increased the debt by almost 80% during his term, we had to contend with the Soviet Union. War has changed a long time ago. No major power can go to war in a serious manner anymore because of the availability of nuclear weapons. And who are you going to muscle against? Somali pirates? :D

Whiskey keep your verbal diarrhea on your own blog so the rest of us don't have to contend with it in saner places like on this blog.

Brent Lane said...

I managed to avoid all but about 10-15 minutes of the second debate, and skipped the other two entirely, as well as the utterly meaningless Veepstakes. I have, however, read the reaction to the debates here and elsewhere in the iSteveosphere. I have come to one inescapable conclusion:

The fact that there is not merely grim resignation, but outright enthusiasm for the prospect of a Romney Presidency amongst people who self-identify as conservative tells me just how far beyond doomed the formerly Constitutional republic has traveled.

We richly deserve the chaos and despair we have coming to us as a nation. Regardless of who wins Nobember 6th.

Anonymous said...

When the pundits say "Obama on points" they mean he was more aggressive in trying to land punches, as if they were watching/scoring a boxing match.

Unfortunately for Obama, that is not what the voters/viewers were looking for tonight. They were either partisans who wouldn't change their votes even if their candidate said, "The moment my term begins, I'll drop a nuclear bomb on the whole of the Middle East and rid ourselves of the problem forever" or they were undecideds or Romney leaners looking to see if Romney came off as a war monger. He didn't. He came off as knowledgeable and even-tempered, even good natured, and thus, this "win" goes to Romney.

Anonymous said...

A few commentators have pointed out something I noticed too: Obama seemed physically uncomfortable, especially insofar as he seems not to know where to focus his eyes. In the last debate, he had an odd look on his face too, eyes wide, as if on too much coffee.

Anonymous said...

"The polls are showing an overwhelming Obama victory this time, you delusional fool. The capacity of the iSteve commentariat to insulate themselves from reality never ceases to amuse."

Yeah, a debate victory, but how about an election victory? This debate was potentially a devastating loss for Romney, because of the Benghazi snafu last debate. Obama announced that he'll be seeking retribution for Benghazi, it went almost unnoticed because Romney didn't badger Obama.

If Romney had made the debate Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Obama would have felled him with his announcement. I expect that now Obama will bomb somebody, something, before the election. If it goes well, 0bama will win, because nobody in the media will ever accuse 0B of being cynical.

Truth said...

"The best way to preserve peace is have a massive navy, that no group of people will think of challenging. A 700 ship navy seen with Reagan will get ... Reagan's level of peace."

And we've been invaded so many times since then.

Anonymous said...

I'm always bothered by Obama's plosive emphasis on the last words of each sentence: "I feel that this is what we must DO." His inflection changes very little...monotonous.

Anonymous said...

reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSpSkWPBx6M

The Legendary Linda said...

Rather, it was the look of a catty and petulant aging homosexual wanting to hiss at someone who displeased his delicate sensibilities. I can't imagine this goes over well with most viewers, male or female. I was also struck with Obama's delicateness and effiminacy. Every time he would waive his hands around I couldn't help but notice how gracile his wrists and hands are. Under the padding of his suit he's positively a scrawny little man. What do you think he weighs? Maybe a buck thirtyfive on a 6'1.5" frame? Not an alpha male.

He is extremely skinny. He might even be secretly gay. But Obama looked TOUGH. That look in his eyes tonight was absolutely menacing. He looks like he would be an extremely good physical fighter, in fact he looks like a dark skinned version of a super tough tall thin white guy who would startle much more muscular opponents with the speed and precision of his punch. He looked like a dark skinned version of the tall skinny super tough skinhead Ryan gosling played in "The Believer":

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/enter/tv/2002/2002-03-15-believer.htm

My opinion of obama's IQ went up by 10 points after this debate, because he proved he is capable of thinking on his feet when he really needs to, and that same quick-wit would have made him a good street fighter had he been raised in a more typical black environment.

Had Obama been raised in the black ghetto he would never have become president, but he would have used his high IQ and tall thin fast physique to be a top fighter and the skinny mulatto leader of a gang of dark skinned black muscular thugs who would have been in awe of how well that skinny near-white kid can fight.

Truth said...

"On general tone I think Romney did a good job as not comming off as a warmongering idiot in the vein of Bush or McCain,"

I think the problem is, he did not come off as anything at all. Four debates and a convention now, and I can honestly say that outside of a very hazy, and tired 1982 era "five point plan", I have no idea what Mittens believes at all.

The Republicans seem totally, obscenely, incompetent at running presidential campaigns, the whole Romney campaign seems to be "hey, I'm not as bad as the other guy!"

Anonymous said...

The Democrats have refused to pass a budget for the past few years because doing so would be politically awkward and inconvenient. So one benefit of a Romney presidency would be that the US federal government would finally get a budget.

There are other benefits. The MSM would suddenly remember their role as watchdogs, and we'd be treated to the now-unfamiliar spectacle of a US President being subjected to criticism where appropriate. (And, because he's a Republicans, where not appropriate as well)

All of a sudden the fact that the economy really sucks won't be covered up any more - you'll see it discussed around the clock.

Anonymous said...

My brother-in law is a major neocon supporter and called me to tell me that he thought tonight's debate was the best that he had seen in 10 years. What a fool.

Rev. Right said...

Svigor said...
Oh, about Intrade "odds" heavily favoring 0bama, the more I learn about Intrade, the less I trust it as any kind of election barometer. Anyone care to explain why it's worth paying attention to?
------------

Truthfully, I know next to nothing about Intrade other than you have to put your money up regarding the outcome of the election, something no one with a typical net worth and any amount of sense would be willing to do. Thus, it would be easily skewable by someone with an extraordinary net worth and little sense.

Therefore, it is probably not worth paying much attention to.

Rex Little said...

I get an impression that a lot of you here want Obama to lose the election, but don't want Romney to win. A very sensible attitude; I commend you.

Now, how about you take the next logical step and vote for Gary Johnson.

Auntie Analogue said...


Having submitted to the torture of viewing the first two pseudo-debates I abjured viewing tonight's pseudo-debate.

It proved less upsetting to me to have instead watched my St. Louis Cardinals lose NLCS game seven to San Francisco.

Cail Corishev said...

Brent, what you're reading as enthusiasm for Romney is mostly, I think, relief at the possible end of Obamanation. I don't think anyone expects Romney to rule as a conservative. But he's a grownup, and he doesn't actually hate us. That's not much, but it's a damn sight better than what we've had for the last four years.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Romney learned that acting like the bully that he is, is not going to work as a foreign policy strategy. So he toned down his act and behaved.

He was also pandering to the female vote. The bubbas are in his pocket already.

Bottomline: Obama wins the debate, but Romney does not hurt himself too much.

Severn said...

I think there's a pretty strong case to be made that Obama has been, very literally, the worst President in US history. I admit to feeling "enthusiasm" at the prospect of kicking him out of office.

Under Carter we merely had Americans taken hostage in Iran. Under Obama we had the US Ambassador to Libya murdered. And Carters economy was vastly better than Obama's.

Severn said...

Although, remember that Bush(Dubya) also campaigned on restraint in the 2000 election. We all know what happened after that.


I remember what Obama campaigned on in 2008, and I remember what happened after he won the election. You seem to have forgotten both of these things.

Anonymous said...

The Republicans seem totally, obscenely, incompetent at running presidential campaigns, the whole Romney campaign seems to be "hey, I'm not as bad as the other guy!"


Remember, everyone - Trooth has voted Republican in every Presidential election since Eisenhower!

Anonymous said...

But Obama looked TOUGH. That look in his eyes tonight was absolutely menacing. He looks like he would be an extremely good physical fighter, in fact he looks like a dark skinned version of a super tough tall thin white guy who would startle much more muscular opponents with the speed and precision of his punch.



Women are appallingly bad judges of a mans fighting ability.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

I was in the Navy in the 80's. Hardly a time of peace. There was a lot of stuff going on that is still just dribbling out.

Basically there were two undeclared wars going on - in Central America and under the sea.

As to hearkening back to that era to demonstrate that "size matters" when it comes to Navy's, we just barely edged over the 600 ship Navy count, and that was by some creative accounting of what a "ship" was. But it had to be done since the "600 ship navy" was a Reagan campaign promise or something.

At the same time, though, the Soviet Navy had lots more ships, I don't recall how many, but they did have at least 400 submarines alone.

Yet, despite this numerical edge, everyone, and this included the Soviets, clearly understood that the Soviet Navy would "live a short and excited life" in the outbreak of general warfare facing the U.S. Navy.

Obama really did have a point on the bayonets/horses thing.

Anonymous said...

I think there's a pretty strong case to be made that Obama has been, very literally, the worst President in US history...Under Carter we merely had Americans taken hostage in Iran. Under Obama we had the US Ambassador to Libya murdered.

By that logic, wouldn't George W. Bush and FDR, among others, be worse presidents, since thousands of Americans were killed under their watch on 9/11 and at Pearl Harbor?

eah said...

And Carters economy was vastly better than Obama's.

As I said before, the country that put Armstrong on the moon -- assuming you believe he went there -- does not exist anymore. So I'm not sure about comparing the economy today with what existed under Carter. You can't have a first world economy and standard of living with an increasingly third world population. Unless you pile on debt...until you're not able to do that anymore.

So I don't hold Obama responsible for the bad economy -- the 'not enough there there' aspect of it, e.g. its tilt toward FIRE, has been ongoing for some time.

Obama is effeminate and possesses a kind of superficial verbal intelligence. He has no idea how to create wealth, and was elected by dopes with dopey dreams of 'social justice'. The Drudge item on Sandra Fluke attracting fewer than a dozen listeners in Reno was perhaps apropos of nothing, but I found her background somehow illustrative: She graduated from Cornell University's Program in Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003. Typical Obama supporter.

Obama is extremely un-presidential. Per his remarks on the Gates and Trayvon Martin cases, he's also a big-mouthed, impulsive racial demagogue of the worst kind. On that, to me there is not a lot of difference between Obama and Sharpton.

All in all I strongly dislike Obama. But I absolutely despise him for leaving American troops in Afghanistan to be shot in the back.

NOTA said...

The polls haven't shown a big victory for Obama since the first debate. The current projections I've seen show Obama more likely to win than Romney, but it's a close race. 538's simulations show a substantial probability of either a split between the popular vote winner and the electoral college winner, or a state that detemines the election outcome being almost tied (within half a perent), almost certainly triggering recounts and legal battles. Those things don't happen in a big victory for either side.


Anonymous said...

>>I think there's a pretty strong case to be made that Obama has been, very literally, the worst President in US history. I admit to feeling "enthusiasm" at the prospect of kicking him out of office.

Are you a troll or earth-shatteringly stupid?

NOTA said...

Svigor:

I think gambling houses outside the US take bets on US elections, and I think you can make real money on those bets. So maybe the right way to check intrade is to see how well it tracks with those odds. This just distills the opinions of people willing to bet their own money on their opinion in one place, obviously. It seems more useful to look directly at the available data.

I guess one hope with something like intrade is that people with inside information will use it to place bets and so will change the odds. I'm pretty skeptical this is going to be usedul for the presidental election, though it's possible. (I guess if you knew a big scandal was about to break, that would be the kind of inside information you might hope would leak via intrade. There's apparently some evidence that US sponsored coups were known and invested on, during the cold war, so this isn't entirely theorerical.

Matthew said...

"A carrier group plus one MIRVed warhead is toast. In a real war with a serious adversary (not our current extended campaign of blowing up brown people) carriers would be obsolete."

Then there is no longer such a thing as a "real war." Once you accept the premise that one side can attack the other's military assets with nuclear weapons, the game is over. And the United States has plenty of nukes with which to attack the other side. So China has a 15 million man army? Not anymore.

A big part of our future will be spent policing peoples incapable of attacking a carrier group - let alone 11 of them - with nuclear weapons.

War today is economic and demographic. Mexico is beating us, El Salvador is beating is, Somalia is beating us, China is beating us, the Islamnic World is beating us. Osama bin Laden's greatest success wasn't knocking down the Twin Towers - it was getting us to blow a trillion dollars on two pointless, endless wars, ruin the lives of tens of thousands of servicemen, and wasting billions of man hours standing in line at airports getting our body cavities inspected. Game, set, and match, he won. A hundred years from now when the United States is a third-rate power, poor but diverse, the Islamic World will think bin Laden an even greater hero than they do now.

In a less politcally correct world we would've ended Muslim immigration after 9/11 and sent most of those here packing, not giving a shit about petty matters like citizenship, in a much kinder, gentler version of the Trail of Tears. We have lost the will to make the hard choices that a civilzation needs to routinely make in order to survive. The WW2 internment of Japanese-Americans may have been completely unnecessary, but it showed we were willing to do everything it took to win, even the unpleasant things.

Matthew said...

Since at least August I've thought it was Mitt's race to lose, and tonight didn't prove me wrong. The economy is sour, the uncertainty surrounding the trillion dollar deficit keeps businesses uneasy, and Obama has turned off a large share of the electorate by showing himself to be a haughty, statist, anti-/post-American lefty.

Romney's been disciplined. He hasn't made a single comment (in public) that was especially damning. Thank the ghost of George Romney for that.

With an electorate getting ever dumber, Obama might still pull it out on election day, but I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney strikes me as more of a Reagan than a Bush, Senior or Junior. Reagan did a lot of saber rattling and increased the military's size, but he didn't use it much. He bombed Tripoli, and he invaded tiny Grenada, but that was it. All those tanks, battleships and fiighters - for Tripoli and Grenada. The Bush's both wanted big wars, and they got them. Romney likely doesn't want a war, but he'll talk tough in order to avoid one.

Romney, for good and ill, has spent his whole life focused on the balance sheet, and war doesn't do much for your profit margin. He'll take a tough stand on Iran, which is good for Israel but is also good for us and Europe and most everyone else.

Anonymous said...

War today is economic and demographic. Mexico is beating us, El Salvador is beating is, Somalia is beating us, China is beating us, the Islamnic World is beating us.

China may be doing ok in terms of economic growth, but no, Mexico, El Salvador, Somalia, and the Islamic world are not beating us, at anything. This is just moronic.

Lugash said...

He'll take a tough stand on Iran, which is good for Israel but is also good for us and Europe and most everyone else.

If it's good for Israel, Europe and most everyone else, let them take the lead on this one.

Anonymous said...

"China may be doing ok in terms of economic growth, but no, Mexico, El Salvador, Somalia, and the Islamic world are not beating us, at anything."

wasn't mexico ahead in obesity or close to it? Selective shedding of emaciated countryfolks to US is smart policy.

Anonymous said...

USN vs Soviet navy - in an all-out fight the best of the rest would have fighting the Soviets too. Britain, France, Canada etc Making the slight Soviet numerical advantage even less important.

DaveinHackensack said...

"Mitt Romney strikes me as more of a Reagan than a Bush, Senior or Junior. Reagan did a lot of saber rattling and increased the military's size, but he didn't use it much. He bombed Tripoli, and he invaded tiny Grenada, but that was it."

Except for Lebanon, which he bailed on after 200+ Marines were killed by one truck bomb. Under Reagan, we focused more on relatively inexpensive (in both dollars and American blood) proxy wars (in Afghanistan and Central America). But, overall, I think you're right about Reagan and Romney.

PA said...

"Somalia, and the Islamic world are not beating us, at anything. This is just moronic."

There are thousands of Somalians settling in little northern towns in America. How many Americans are settling in Somalia?

Anonymous said...

Steve is one of America's foremost Obama scholars. Anybody writing about Obama in past four years has clearly been influenced by Steve's blog archives.

And because Obama is such an inscrutable recluse, I believe even his closest aides read iSteve to figure this guy out. Hell, I'm Even guessing intelligence agencies both domestic and foreign read this blog.

Dahinda said...

Two guys aruguing over minor differences in their point of view of how the same EXACT foriegn policy should be conducted is not a debate!

Anonymous said...

Mexico is beating us, El Salvador is beating is, Somalia is beating us, China is beating us, the Islamnic World is beating us.

Not China.

The Chinese demographic situation [especially in the big prosperous cities, like Hong Kong and Shanghai] is beyond disastrous - it's an express train to extinction.

We are very nearly at the point where the effective USA population is GREATER than the effective China population.

[Now you could counter that China still has a higher quality population, given our disastrous NAM situation, but that's a different conversation.]

Hugh said...

Over at the Weekly Standard Jay Cost has this excellent analysis of the importance of the Black vote around election time: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-can-obama-sustain-enthusiasm-african-americans_655182.html

The importance of having a lockdown on the votes of a large (but not majority) group stand out.

It's my impression that the Dem Presidential candidate will have to be black for the next 2-3 election cycles to keep this demographic on side. Keery may have been the last white Dem candidate that I see in my lifetime.

ElvisNixon.com said...

Obama Voter Tattoo:

http://elvisnixon.com/2010/09/23/obama-voter-tattoo.aspx

Anonymous said...

"China may be doing ok in terms of economic growth, but no, Mexico, El Salvador, Somalia, and the Islamic world are not beating us, at anything. This is just moronic."

I'm not too familiar with El Salvador, but most of those countries are beating us in the area where it counts; survival as a people.

Mexico and the Islamic World are successfully colonizing huge swathes of our territory. The future belongs to them.

Harry Baldwin said...

Anonymous Matthew said...We have lost the will to make the hard choices that a civilization needs to routinely make in order to survive. The WW2 internment of Japanese-Americans may have been completely unnecessary, but it showed we were willing to do everything it took to win, even the unpleasant things.

Well said. My sentiments exactly.

Baloo said...

Just so you all know, Rex Little is not Rex May. I adhere to the theory that the only way to get Obama out of the White House is to put Romney in. Damn shame, but reality is often a damn shame. Here's an explanation of why
a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama.

Perspective said...

I think this Simpson's clip accurately sums up this election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvvYuO6zHM

Mr. Anon said...

"Matthew said...

A big part of our future will be spent policing peoples incapable of attacking a carrier group - let alone 11 of them - with nuclear weapons."

No, this is a big part of our present. Our future will consist of rembering a time when we were a great nation, at which time we will no longer be - will just be a slightly cooler Brazil.

"War today is economic and demographic."

War is whatever the next group of people to make war on you decide it will be.

"We have lost the will to make the hard choices that a civilzation needs to routinely make in order to survive. The WW2 internment of Japanese-Americans may have been completely unnecessary, but it showed we were willing to do everything it took to win, even the unpleasant things."

This is at odds with what you wrote earlier. We have also lost the will to use nuclear weapons, as evidenced by the fact that we are now making our boomers co-ed. Other nations - the Chinese, for example - have not.

Anonymous said...

" Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mexico is beating us, El Salvador is beating is, Somalia is beating us, China is beating us, the Islamnic World is beating us.

Not China.

The Chinese demographic situation [especially in the big prosperous cities, like Hong Kong and Shanghai] is beyond disastrous - it's an express train to extinction.

We are very nearly at the point where the effective USA population is GREATER than the effective China population.

[Now you could counter that China still has a higher quality population, given our disastrous NAM situation, but that's a different conversation.]"

I would so love to think that this statement is true but it's probably wishful thinking.

Can someone explain to me what "effective population" is supposed to mean? Is this referring to projections based on birth rates or something? Is this like the unemployment rate where the people who aren't looking for work don't count?

Anonymous said...

Although, remember that Bush(Dubya) also campaigned on restraint in the 2000 election. We all know what happened after that.

911 happened, that's what.

Before this, Bush showed clear signs of delivering on his promise of more "humble" foreign policy. He went a long way to extricate us from the Kosovo mess and leave it to Europeans. He tried rapprochement with Russia (that's when he met Putin and saw his soul in his eyes, for which he was forever ridiculed by the neocons.) The confrontation with China over that downed plane was defused quietly and without too much sabre-rattling on our part. On Iraq, Bush modified the sanctions to allow more trade in civilian goods. I could continue.

And then it all changed in a day.

Anonymous said...

Obama pussywhipped Romney in the navy size exchange.

It would be nice if Steve should share with us how he's going to vote.

Mke Eisestadt, Austin Texas

Truth said...

Fear not, gentlemen, It is now T-24 hour until "The Donald" drops a bomb that's going to tear the WHOLE LID off the Barry Sotero controversy; It's going to make Hiroshima look like the Fourth of July!

Phhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwww-BOOM!

Truth said...

HOLD THE PHONES!

Upon further Review, Gloria Allred says that she has a SHOW-STOPPER to pull out on the Mittler election campaign tomorrow. Check back tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel!

Anonymous said...

"I think there's a pretty strong case to be made that Obama has been, very literally, the worst President in US history...Under Carter we merely had Americans taken hostage in Iran. Under Obama we had the US Ambassador to Libya murdered."

By that logic, wouldn't George W. Bush and FDR, among others, be worse presidents, since thousands of Americans were killed under their watch on 9/11 and at Pearl Harbor?



Logic's not your strong suit. What happened after 9/11, after Pearl Harbor?

Logically, Obama should now take military action in Libya. Oh, wait .... it was Obama's (illegal) military action in Libya which made the country safe for Al Queda in the first place.

Beefy Levinson said...

When it's over, I've decided to write a monograph on this election. The title will be "Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets: America Decides on Affirmative Action or Legacy Admission."

Matra said...

Svigor:

I think gambling houses outside the US take bets on US elections, and I think you can make real money on those bets. So maybe the right way to check intrade is to see how well it tracks with those odds. This just distills the opinions of people willing to bet their own money on their opinion in one place, obviously. It seems more useful to look directly at the available data.


On election day 2004 I made a bit of money on a George Bush victory on a European betting website. It was clear from the odds that the punters believed there would be a Kerry victory, probably due to influence of US media projections. I saw this then spent about 20 minutes looking at the Electoral College votes, as well as the demographics of the "too close to call" states. I then guessed older middle class white people would be more likely to show up at the polls, and so I made a small bet. Given that I didn't even make the bet until fairly late on election day - about 6pm ET - it gave me the impression that those who think they know who is going to win aren't as knowledgeable as they let on. (The John Major "surprise" 1992 victory also comes to mind).

Matthew said...

"The Chinese demographic situation [especially in the big prosperous cities, like Hong Kong and Shanghai] is beyond disastrous - it's an express train to extinction."

Yes, but the Chinese are not being overrun and browbeaten by folks from abroad. Whatever the demographic situation there, the people of China ca. 2065 will look much like the people of China ca. 1965. Can't say that for the United States.

I wasn't referring to the economic conditions or population growth of Somalia, etc. I was referring to their demographic conquest of other lands.

We can bitch on iSteve and elsewhere all we want. We can shut down immigration, and we should. But the only way long-term to take back our country is for whites to embrace a culture that prizes procreation.

Matthew said...

"There are thousands of Somalians settling in little northern towns in America. How many Americans are settling in Somalia?"

Precisely. A vigorous, flourishing culture settles other people's countries - think of British settlements in India, South Africa, North America, Rhodesia, Australia, New Zealand, etc. The Brits were on pace to conquer the world not just politically and economically, but demographically.

Today we are the ones being colonized. Granted the cultures colonizing us are pretty damn backwards, but they are vigorous.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand when people talk about what an awful president Obama has been. To me he has been a fairly decent generic Democratic president, and hasn't done much different than most other Democrats would have done. I disagree with him on many issues, but my disagreement is with the party (and American politics in general), not him. In every debate Romney's argument has been the same: look how bad the last four years have been! The problem is, he just hasn't given me any convincing reason to believe he could have done any better, or will do better over the next four years.

Also, I do find Obama's speech rhythms kind of odd, and a little annoying (although not as bad as Bush's). But I preferred his facial expressions in the debate to Romney's. Obama generally looked serious and focused, while Romney tended to look kind of maudlin.

Svigor said...

Tim Stanley on the third debate

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.

Funny how this guy and I are both saying the same thing, but I never heard of him until today.

P.S., Steve, did you add that third question about who is acting like he's in the lead after the fact? Because I don't remember it being there last night.

Svigor said...

Wow, I mean, that's almost exactly what I've been saying.

ben tillman said...

I get an impression that a lot of you here want Obama to lose the election, but don't want Romney to win. A very sensible attitude; I commend you.

Now, how about you take the next logical step and vote for Gary Johnson.


Perot, Nader, Buchanan, Baldwin -- I've voted for them all.

Svigor said...

Had Obama been raised in the black ghetto he would never have become president, but he would have used his high IQ and tall thin fast physique to be a top fighter and the skinny mulatto leader of a gang of dark skinned black muscular thugs who would have been in awe of how well that skinny near-white kid can fight.

Er, you wanna be alone with that fantasy (what, nothing about how he'd glisten with sweat)? Romney has successfully assumed daddy role over the 0 from the word "go." The narcissist privately knows he's an empty AA suit.

The Republicans seem totally, obscenely, incompetent at running presidential campaigns, the whole Romney campaign seems to be "hey, I'm not as bad as the other guy!"

I know, right? If a rock-ribbed Black Republican like yourself has doubts about the guy...

Looks like Romney learned that acting like the bully that he is, is not going to work as a foreign policy strategy. So he toned down his act and behaved.

Lol, the community organizer will save us from the evil, successful white bully (or leader, same thing).

No, Romney was behaving like a guy in the lead.

He was also pandering to the female vote. The bubbas are in his pocket already.

He was winning an election, I think. Do you call your daddy "bubba" too? Or just the male demo in general, with daddy excepted?

The current projections I've seen show Obama more likely to win than Romney, but it's a close race.

Not the U of C projection, the one people say is always right (but obviously wrong this year). You know, the one that put Romney's chance of winning at 77%.

Rob said...

Way too boring for me, but I find the names-of-countries count from the transcript to be mildly interesting (courtesy of John Derbyshire):

Canada 0, India 0, Germany 0, Brazil 0, Tunisia 1, Japan 1, Korea 1, Saudi Arabia 2, Greece 2, Britain/U.K. 2, Turkey 3, Mali 5, Egypt 11, Libya 13, Afghanistan 21, Pakistan 25, Syria 28, China 32, Israel 34, Iran 47.

Mexico scored 0.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

Everything he just said isn't true. -- Obama

There is no relationship -- Clinton

(Actually, that's just Obama being illiterate. Still it's fun to play)

David said...

>I'll miss the Kossacks when they depart this site post election, in a river of tears.<

Kossacks?

And they tried to tell us neoconservatism is ... well, Presbyterian or something.

Shoving bayonets into Kossacks (at a profit, of course, at a profit!) is a perfect capsule description of the foreign policy aspirations of the lunatic fringe who just so happens to run much of D.C. regardless of the administration.

If I have to read another article on why sentencing "Pussy Riot" to a couple of years in the slammer for trashing a church is the Second Coming of Hitler (or Christ?), I shall cancel my subscription to the print edition of Newsweek post haste.

Anonymous said...

"Looks like Romney learned that acting like the bully that he is"

You don't sound like someone who reads this blog much. You sound like you are a MSNBC viewer who simply spouts their silly lines.

"Bully"? I guess you simply do what the pundits there do, ignore Romney's life history, both his personal history or his life in business and as governor.

Hey, you know what the people at the networks have failed to point out? You haven't seen any Democrat legilators from MA claiming they hated working with Romney. That's very telling.

pat said...

This is a morning after comment. In retrospect it seems to me that each one of the debaters was appearing at a different event. Obama may be considered the debate winner but he was in a sense debating unopposed.

As one of the commenters above noted this was not just a college type debate but also a job interview. Romney spent most of his time smoothly segueing into his canned speech segments. He had a clear agenda and a set of points that he wanted to present. He almost ignored Obama and what he was saying. He was was like Pablo in "For Whom the Bell Tolls". He was not going to be provoked.

Obama - as Linda above pointed out - came across as quite smart. I've been surprised at just how sharp Obama has been. I see now that I have underestimated him. But he he also has revealed a glaring weakness. He is only really comfortable when 'preaching to the choir'. His line about horses and bayonets was aimed at his most rabid supporters. I'm sure those already deeply and permanently committed to him were ecstatic by this nasty gibe. But Romney was wasn't interested in throwing raw meat to his strongest adherents. He was working hard at appealing to the uncommitted. He just put his head down and continued to present himself and his agenda.

Obama wanted to win the debate. Romney wanted to win the election.

Albertosaurus

Ex Submarine Officer said...

War today is economic and demographic. Mexico is beating us, El Salvador is beating is, Somalia is beating us, China is beating us, the Islamnic World is beating us. Osama bin Laden's greatest success wasn't knocking down the Twin Towers - it was getting us to blow a trillion dollars on two pointless, endless wars, ruin the lives of tens of thousands of servicemen, and wasting billions of man hours standing in line at airports getting our body cavities inspected. Game, set, and match, he won. A hundred years from now when the United States is a third-rate power, poor but diverse, the Islamic World will think bin Laden an even greater hero than they do now.

In a less politcally correct world we would've ended Muslim immigration after 9/11 and sent most of those here packing, not giving a shit about petty matters like citizenship, in a much kinder, gentler version of the Trail of Tears. We have lost the will to make the hard choices that a civilzation needs to routinely make in order to survive. The WW2 internment of Japanese-Americans may have been completely unnecessary, but it showed we were willing to do everything it took to win, even the unpleasant things.


Not only thread winner, probably blog winner. This is the most civilizationally important thing to understand about the world in which we live today.

Rev. Right said...

NOTA said...
Svigor:

I think gambling houses outside the US take bets on US elections, and I think you can make real money on those bets. So maybe the right way to check intrade is to see how well it tracks with those odds

------------------------

It may be that a significant portion of the Intrade plays are from overseas. I was just in Europe, and the politcal coverage on the BBC and CNN International was very NPR-ish, with a little extra sneering. Anyone who made a call based on what they saw on those networks wouldn't even consider the possibility of a Romney victory. So maybe the 60-40 odds favoring Obama are partially explained by under-informed foreign bettors.

josh said...

Re Linda:Obama would be a "mulatto leader of as gang of dark skinned black muscular thugs".Linda this is iSteve,HBD and all that.Take your sexual fantasies to an appropriate site!

Anonymous said...

For the record on Obama's "zinger," it was probably factually incorrect. We do still issue bayonets with our M4s, which are still engineered to accept them. There's not a GI in Obama's chain of command that doesn't have a bayonet. Doesn't O know that? I believe the word he meant was "swords," not bayonets but with his usual imprecision pulled a close but inaccurate substitute out of his subcon. That's one more indicator of how dangerous he is: he can't express himself clearly, continually misuses or forgets words; do we want this guy arguing with a computer head like Putin?

Cail Corishev said...

"A vigorous, flourishing culture settles other people's countries - think of British settlements in India, South Africa, North America, Rhodesia, Australia, New Zealand, etc."

Come on. The Indians and Australian Aborigines didn't sail to Britain, load up British people, and bring them home and set them up with houses and a magic piece of plastic that makes people give you food. I'm not any happier about the colonization of the US than anyone else here, but the fact that we seem determined to prove our niceness by offering our guest room and our best fatted calf to everyone willing to make the trip doesn't mean there's any similarity between our foreign welfare clients and the British Empire. The foreign settlements in our country are only flourishing to the extent that we pay them to do so.

Cail Corishev said...

"The problem is, [Romney] just hasn't given me any convincing reason to believe he could have done any better, or will do better over the next four years."

Then you're not capable of seeing it. His business successes prove that he's head and shoulders above Obama when it comes to meeting a budget and running an efficient organization. Obama's never had to do either, and it's shown in the way he's completely failed on the economy. (It was going to be bad regardless of who was in charge, but he's turned it into a complete mess.)

So decades of successful business experience isn't evidence in your eyes, but we're supposed to believe that a canned response from Romney during a debate could convince you?

Dahlia said...

Matra,

Thanks for sharing. I haven't stayed on top of intrade and its reputation, but in the past, I have always found it to be the best soothsayer *except* on the day of an election.
In 2004, I waited as late as I was physically able and then printed off every single election contest, roughly before midnight that election eve.
Intrade was correct on all of them (dozens) except one and that one separated the two by less than a point. And no doubt that one kept vascillating and I just happened to catch it at the wrong point.

To all, is there any reason to believe that it is not accurate anymore? I must confess that I find the dismissal of polls, pollsters, betting sites, etc. without merit. It happens every single year.
I started to read a couple articles a couple weeks back about why the polls were being manipulated, but when I get a couple paragraphs in and the author does not offer any evidence for why an outfit would jeopardize their reputation, usually built over decades, to help a candidate, I dismiss it.

I remember Razib at GNXP discussed this during the last election, sharply criticizing zombietime.

Right now, intrade seems to be rational showing a roughly twenty point odds advantage for Obama. Until the polls show a plausible chance for Romney winning Ohio or Wisconsin, or, Nevada and Iowa, it will stay that way.

Truth said...

"do we want this guy arguing with a computer head like Putin?"

Depends on what language they argue in.

Svigor said...

It may be that a significant portion of the Intrade plays are from overseas.

I read a conversation a couple days ago about Intrade and the unchallenged position was that Americans can't even use Intrade.

Svigor said...

Hey, you know what the people at the networks have failed to point out? You haven't seen any Democrat legilators from MA claiming they hated working with Romney. That's very telling.

Every time they point out how Romney's going to lose Mass, I want to point out how no red state ever made the zero their governor.

Anonymous said...

Logic's not your strong suit. What happened after 9/11, after Pearl Harbor?

Logically, Obama should now take military action in Libya. Oh, wait .... it was Obama's (illegal) military action in Libya which made the country safe for Al Queda in the first place.


His argument was that Obama is the worst president because a few Americans died at Benghazi under his watch. Since many more Americans have died by foreign attacks under the watch of other presidents, and have done so on American soil, that should make those other presidents than Obama by his logic.

Anonymous said...

I get an impression that a lot of you here want Obama to lose the election, but don't want Romney to win. A very sensible attitude


If by sensible you mean "stupid", sure. One of those two men will be the next President. There is no third option. Voting for Gary Johnson is masturbation, at best. Advocating that other people vote for Johnson is Dem dirty tricks.

Truth said...

"Every time they point out how Romney's going to lose Mass, I want to point out how no red state ever made the zero their governor."

Well, there may be some slight confluence with the fact that he never ran.

Truth said...

" Advocating that other people vote for Johnson is Dem dirty tricks."

Why? Is Mittens going to lose by four or five votes?

This reminds me of the lefties blaming Ralph Nader for "giving" the election to Boy George in 2000 as if it was not his constituitonal right to run for president.

Severn said...

His argument was that Obama is the worst president because a few Americans died at Benghazi under his watch.

Damn, you're stupid. Of course your name is "Anonymous" so nothing new there.

The argument is NOT that Obama is a terrible President because "a few Americans died at Benghazi under his watch". The argument is that Obama himself personally created the conditions in Libya for those deaths. You may have heard something in the press about Obama's little Libyan adventure? Some people actually believe that presidents are responsible when their plans go badly wrong.

In fairness to Carter, he did not intervene at gunpoint to put Khomeini in power in Iran, so that makes him better than Obama.

And as I mentined, Carter's economy was far better than Obama's.

In fact, it's hard to think of one thing Obama has touched which has not turned to dross. As other people have mentioned, the man has a reverse Midas touch.

I'm willing to hear other candidates for "Worst President Of All Time", but they have a steep hill to climb to unseat Obama.

Anonymous said...

The Bush's both wanted big wars, and they got them. Romney likely doesn't want a war, but he'll talk tough in order to avoid one.

Saddam did overrun Kuwait, on his way to the rest of the Gulf states. Bush I needed to prevent Saddam from unifying the Gulf states under his rule and to show would-be Saladins in the region that they not only wouldn't get a free shot, they'd get a lot of their troops killed and their equipment smashed.

And Muslims did kill 3000 Americans on 9/11. Nobody knows if Saddam was a sponsor - absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and Muslim regime heads had to be convinced that we would kill them and their families if they tried something like this again. Bush II needed to smack some Arab heads together after Afghanistan and he chose to invade Iraq and occupy it, which has turned out to be an expensive venture, but not entirely unjustifiable.

Anonymous said...

In fairness to Carter, he did not intervene at gunpoint to put Khomeini in power in Iran, so that makes him better than Obama.

Nope, he only got the CIA and MI6 to fund Khomeini and his faction so they come on top of the revolution. With no reliable allies in Iran, and a strong communist party, it made sense at the time to secretly support someone who was "His Own Bastard and Nobody Else's". Pity about the hostages, though.

Svigor said...

Well, there may be some slight confluence with the fact that he never ran.

Agreed; can't run for governor when TPTB need an empty AA suit for the White House ASAP.

To all, is there any reason to believe that it is not accurate anymore? I must confess that I find the dismissal of polls, pollsters, betting sites, etc. without merit. It happens every single year.
I started to read a couple articles a couple weeks back about why the polls were being manipulated, but when I get a couple paragraphs in and the author does not offer any evidence for why an outfit would jeopardize their reputation, usually built over decades, to help a candidate, I dismiss it.


But the tree makes no sound. Like the 0bama press corps is going to fault them for giving the 0 points? Yeah, right.

Nobody in America suffers for giving the black dude a boost. They'd probably be more at risk if they stopped using the ridiculous assumptions and minority oversampling and broke from the herd. I do think they'll be motivated to correct and come closer to the actual figures as we approach the election, since nobody really remembers "hey, the polls were full of crap a month out," they just remember the week or so before the election.

Look where the candidates are spending money, too. It's all being spent in states the 0 won in 2008. And they're even starting to spend money in blue states.

Anonymous said...

His business successes prove that he's head and shoulders above Obama when it comes to meeting a budget and running an efficient organization.

Not really. The argument we get from Romney is "things have gone badly, so it must be Obama's fault." Maybe. But logically it's just as possible that Obama has done as well as anyone could have expected, given the awful situation he inherited. Romney has given me no reason to favor his side of the equation.

And as for Romney being a successful businessman, well, there are any number of people could make the exact same argument: "trust me, I've made a lot of money." If I thought Obama were truly incompetent that might carry some weight. But the thing is, as I mentioned, it just isn't clear to me that Obama has done that badly. Would McCain have done better? And frankly Romney carries baggage of his own, and doesn't inspire a whole lot of trust in me.

So again, what exactly is it that makes Obama so uniquely awful, as opposed to being just a standard issue, moderately competent Democrat president, struggling to do his best in a bad situation?

Anonymous said...

(Carter) only got the CIA and MI6 to fund Khomeini and his faction so they come on top of the revolution.


You're a nutjob. That allegation of yours is claimed on the same sort of websites where you can read about how the CIA killed JFK.

Anonymous said...

Dahlia,

Polls have to be precise only on the eve of election. Not two months or two weeks away. Very often you see weird movement in a poll in the last days before the votes. Some pollsters are especially notorious for this (e.g. Zogby). I am convinced that many of these so called late surges are not real. It's really pollsters quietly manipulating results to preserve their reputations.

not a hacker said...

It proved less upsetting to me to have instead watched my St. Louis Cardinals lose NLCS game seven to San Francisco

I wish Steve would do a piece on the difference between midwest and west coast baseball announcers as far as being insufferable 'homers'. With Ron Santo gone, Mike Shannon is now tied with Ken Harrelson as the worst announcer going. And when I went there in '96, his restaurant had lousy food, too.

Cail Corishev said...

"But logically it's just as possible that Obama has done as well as anyone could have expected, given the awful situation he inherited."

My parents are farmers, and raise hogs among other things. When you sell hogs, you have to pay into the Pork Checkoff Fund, at a rate that's grown over the years, but is about a dollar per hog. This money goes to fund the promotion of pork, such as the "Other White Meat" ads. This has been in place since 1986.

A decade or so ago, for various reasons having to do with vertical integration and monopoly power, the market price of hogs dropped to below 10 cents/pound. The break-even price at the time was about 40 cents/pound, so this wasn't just unprofitable; it was ridiculous. There were stories that some farmers were actually euthanizing baby pigs because to keep them alive would mean losing money every day.

Farmers were naturally miffed, and weren't very happy about the fact that when they'd sell a hog for $25 that cost $90 to raise, they had to pay $1 for promotion. (Farmers voted to scrap the program in 2000, but the Sec. of Agriculture threw out the vote, and the program continues.) But here's the best part: the checkoff people insisted that if it weren't for them, things would've been even worse. (Presumably people would have stopped eating bacon completely if a quasi-government organization hadn't been reminding them that it tastes good.)

If you can't see that Obama has been a failure -- and most especially a failure at the specific not-like-Bush things that people elected him to do -- then no one's going to be able to convince you. You'll always be able to claim it could've been even worse.

josh said...

Re Bush & Iraq: Correct me if I am wrong,but didnt Bush I give the OK,thru April Glassby(why so many women diplomats!?!!),for Saddam to invade Kuwait,which was stealing Iraqi oil? Wasnt he perplexed when the USA yelled so loud when he did it,and demanded he be publicly submissive and hightail it out. As if "we" wanted a war. 2)When the Bush II Iraq war began to fall apart,it wass a neo-con who said,brilliantly,that the world was STILL a better place because a bad actor was gone,whatever death and chaos took his place. Staggering stupididty and arrogance. Wouldnt the ME be a better place if an anti-fundamentalist like Saddam was still around and acting as a counter to the Fourth Reich next door?? And what was Romney smoking when he said he would somehow "try" Achmajinedad(sp?)for inciting genocide??

Anonymous said...

logically it's just as possible that Obama has done as well as anyone could have expected, given the awful situation he inherited.


No, I don't think that's actually logical.

Follow the link.

Matt said...

I read a conversation a couple days ago about Intrade and the unchallenged position was that Americans can't even use Intrade.

This needs to be repeated every time someone invokes Intrade's numbers. It is extremely difficult for Americans to use Intrade because the federal ban on internet gambling makes it pretty much impossible to actually send them your money.

Anonymous said...

The argument is NOT that Obama is a terrible President because "a few Americans died at Benghazi under his watch". The argument is that Obama himself personally created the conditions in Libya for those deaths. You may have heard something in the press about Obama's little Libyan adventure? Some people actually believe that presidents are responsible when their plans go badly wrong.

The analogy still applies.

You could argue that FDR, George W. Bush created the conditions for a far greater number of deaths, and on American soil at that. So FDR and George W. Bush would have to be considered much worse presidents by this reasoning.

NOTA said...

Anon 915:

So any time someone can get 20 thugs together and kill some Americans, we have to go invade or bomb their country? Doesn't that give an awful lot of really unpleasant people a lot of control over our foreign policy?

Svigor said...

Not really. The argument we get from Romney is "things have gone badly, so it must be Obama's fault." Maybe. But logically it's just as possible that Obama has done as well as anyone could have expected, given the awful situation he inherited. Romney has given me no reason to favor his side of the equation.

0bama had zero qualifications going in. Total AA empty suit. One-term senator from Illinois, for crying out loud. So, it's not exactly rocket science that a life-long proven winner like Romney will do a better job.

Anonymous said...

The argument is that Obama himself personally created the conditions in Libya for those deaths. You may have heard something in the press about Obama's little Libyan adventure? Some people actually believe that presidents are responsible when their plans go badly wrong.

So your argument is that Obama is the worst president ever because he "personally created" the conditions for 4 American deaths in Libya? Does that mean the next president who "personally creates" the conditions for 5 American deaths takes the title away from Barry for worst president ever?

George W. Bush "personally created" the conditions for thousands of American deaths on American soil - he "personally" didn't do anything to prevent it - and he "personally created" the conditions for thousands of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan by "personally" approving and promoting war there.

Anonymous said...

"So again, what exactly is it that makes Obama so uniquely awful, as opposed to being just a standard issue, moderately competent Democrat president, struggling to do his best in a bad situation?"

Two words: Sotomayor and Kagan

Steve Sailer said...

Regional differences in baseball announcers: it was hard for me to adjust to Harry Caray being such a homer for the Cubs after growing up listening to the magisterial Vin Scully call the Dodger games.

Matthew said...

"the fact that we seem determined to prove our niceness by offering our guest room and our best fatted calf to everyone willing to make the trip doesn't mean there's any similarity between our foreign welfare clients and the British Empire. The foreign settlements in our country are only flourishing to the extent that we pay them to do so."

I absolutely agree, but even then what we're experiencing is a form of colonization and conquest.


"It may be that a significant portion of the Intrade plays are from overseas. I was just in Europe, and the politcal coverage on the BBC and CNN International was very NPR-ish, with a little extra sneering. Anyone who made a call based on what they saw on those networks wouldn't even consider the possibility of a Romney victory. So maybe the 60-40 odds favoring Obama are partially explained by under-informed foreign bettors."

A pretty damn good analysis, I think.

Anonymous said...

what exactly is it that makes Obama so uniquely awful, as opposed to being just a standard issue, moderately competent Democrat president


Moderately competent? There is not one single aspect of his job in which Obama's performance can be described as even "moderately" competent. Clinton was a "moderately competent Democrat president". Obama has been a miserable failure.

Severn said...

You could argue that FDR, George W. Bush created the conditions for a far greater number of deaths, and on American soil at that.


You could, if you were a moron. FDR and Bush did not create the conditions for Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Obama did overthrow the existing regime in Libya and cooperate with the people who soon after killed the US Ambassador to that country. Libya is not something which just happened on Obama's watch. He created that problem from scratch.

Anonymous said...

Obama has been a miserable failure.

Uhh, I believe that the Term of Art involves Stuttering Clusterfornication.

Severn said...

So your argument is that Obama is the worst president ever because he "personally created" the conditions for 4 American deaths in Libya?


No, you illiterate goofball. That's part of the argument, of course, but not the argument. Obama is the worst President ever because of his awfulness in every single aspect of his job. His class warfare, his race warfare, his astonishing level of dishonesty even by the standards of politicians, his endless hypocrisy, his broken campaign promises, his crony capitalism, his disastrous healthcare "reform", his trashing of the US economy ... there is not one single area where you can point to and say: "Whatever his other problems, you have to admit that Obama did a good job there."

Severn said...

"So again, what exactly is it that makes Obama so uniquely awful, as opposed to being just a standard issue, moderately competent Democrat president, struggling to do his best in a bad situation?"


See the link at 4:57 PM.

Matthew said...

Mitt Romney:

1) Served a 2 1/2 year mission for his church in France, learning the French language.

2) Graduated summa cum laude and valedictorian from BYU, and gave commencement addresses at both his college and university-wide commencement services.

3) Married a great woman and raised 5 well-adjusted (though probably spoiled rich) sons who don't seem to have done anything to embarrass him.

4) Earned Harvard MBA and JD's in 4 years flat, finishing cum laude from the law school and in the top 5% from the business school.

5) Performed impressively at Bain Consulting while...

6) ...simultaneously serving as the head of his Mormon congregation - a job which consumes no small amount of time.

7) Then was handpicked by Bain's founder to found Bain Capital, which performed impressively for its clients while...

8) ...simultaneously serving as stake president in his church - a job that requires overseeing about a dozen congregations...

9) ...and while racking up an impressive number of stories by friends, colleagues, and fellow churchgoers about what a great guy he was, being there to help out in their times of need.

10) Then took over the failing, scandal-tainted Salt Lake Olympics, turning a profit for the venture.

11) Then managed to get elected governor of Massachusetts, where he did an at least passable job, and didn't spend 70% of his tenure voting "present."

And Barack Obama? Was an egotistical, socialist, anti-American ass the whole of his pre-presidential career.

I have no idea if Mitt will make a great president. Our recent run of presidents both left and right suggests there's a very good chance he won't. He's far from perfect. But we know what kind of president Barack Obama has been. His "success" has mostly involved running up the federal credit card to the tune of $5 trillion.

Mitt Romney, like any politician these days, has had to tell an impressive number of lies and kowtow to an impressive number of sleazbags (e.g., Sheldon Adelson) to even get within sight of the Oval Office. How will he behave after getting there? His past suggests he will behave more honorably than Barack Obama.

Cail Corishev said...

Most people's memories seem to be shorter than four years. I still remember the reasons my moderate friends gave for voting for Obama in 2008. He was going to cut taxes on the middle class and stop filling the pockets of rich banksters. Oops. He was going to get us out of foreign wars. Oops again. He was going to heal the racial divide. Hmm, I'm not sure reflexively taking the side of Trayvon Martin and Henry Louis Gates before the facts came out counts.

Those were the three big things people kept bringing up, that they thought they could depend on from an Obama presidency, and he's failed at each one (if you can count intentionally doing the opposite as a failure). In general, they expected him to use his massive intellect -- which was constantly compared to Bush's supposed retardation -- to come up with new solutions to our problems. He hasn't had an original idea yet, except the bad one of taking sides in Libya.

If it weren't for his skin color, his base would have been losing faith long ago, and he might not even have the support to be the candidate again.

unix said...

"s not running the U.S. a man's business? Why do both candidates run into 'mommy's' arms after the debate like children in a dance contest."

I shouldn't have to tell you, but the women were wives, not mothers. Morally supportive spouses are considered very important these days, whether you are a man or woman. I understand Harry Truman discussed Hiroshima with Bess before he dropped it.
The function of the First Lady (weird title to me) has been important in the United States. A pity they don't get to debate.

teller said...

" Anonymous said...
(Carter) only got the CIA and MI6 to fund Khomeini and his faction so they come on top of the revolution."


You're a nutjob. That allegation of yours is claimed on the same sort of websites where you can read about how the CIA killed JFK.


You tell 'em Anonymous. Everyone knows Lee H. Oswald was not the patsy he claimed to be, and did it all by his lonesome.
I mean the whole event and its long aftermath of strange coincidences and unlikely occurences, CIA or not, is the Mother of all Coincidences.
Trillions to one, according to one statistician.
Yep. You'd have to a nutter not to just accept it like "they" tell us.

Anonymous said...

You could, if you were a moron. FDR and Bush did not create the conditions for Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Obama did overthrow the existing regime in Libya and cooperate with the people who soon after killed the US Ambassador to that country. Libya is not something which just happened on Obama's watch. He created that problem from scratch.

Listen, you low-class New York trash, even if FDR and Bush were less responsible, the magnitude of the deaths under their watch was so much higher that their behavior was far more egregious, if you're going to make judgments along these lines.

And not only that, after 9/11 Bush overthrew the existing regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq to liberate people who soon after killed thousands of Americans.

The Legendary Linda said...


Er, you wanna be alone with that fantasy (what, nothing about how he'd glisten with sweat)?


Just because you guys are sexually aroused by my posts does not mean I'm describing my fantasies. :-)

Anonymous said...

No, you illiterate goofball. That's part of the argument, of course, but not the argument. Obama is the worst President ever because of his awfulness in every single aspect of his job.

Your original comment suggested that having an American die at Benghazi during his presidency made him the worst president ever. Now it's just "part" of the reason. I guess even a trashy New York scumbag can realize how moronic that reasoning was.

Anonymous said...

1) Served a 2 1/2 year mission for his church in France, learning the French language.

He was also a draft dodger. I believe the mission helped him do so.

NOTA said...

W got us into an unnecessary war in Iraq that killed 4,486 US soldiers, and led to something north of a hundred thousand Iraqis dying in the civil war kicked off by our invasion. This same war cost us something north of a trillion dollars--more depending on how you count the medical costs for the injured soldiers.

O got us into an unnecessary war in Libya that killed 4 US people, and cost us something like a billion dollars. It's not clear if this saved or lost Libyan lives--we'll have to see what the country looks like in another decade.

Similarly, O probably didn't handle the huge financial crisis and recession as well as he should have. W's policies (with bipartisan support) got us to the housing bubble and deregulated financial markets that led to the crisis.

W got us entangled in an endless clusterfuck in Afghanistan, which O doubled down on. He started our massive domestic spying programs, which O is continuing to protect. He started our torture and kidnapping programs, which O shut down in favor of blowing the targets and any unlucky bystanders to bits.

O has not been a good president. He's not getting my vote. But I don't see how he even remotely compares with his predecessor, who was a genuine disaster.

NOTA said...

Anon 7:24:

So, Romney avoided going off to get his ass shot off in a pointless war thousands of miles from the US, pursued mainly for domestic political reasons (Johnson didn't want to be attacked for being weak on Communism). I'm missing:

a. Why this is supposed to make me think less of him.

b. What relevance this has in the question of who should be president now, four decades after that pointless clusterfuck.

NOTA said...

Cail:

How about "he was going to put an end to the war on terror excesses of Bush?" That was my main reason for voting for him, and his failure to do so, or to rein in the massive growth of the security state, is why he's not getting my vote again.

Truth said...

"He was also a draft dodger. I believe the mission helped him do so."

Lol, I believe the mission WAS to do so.

Severn said...

Your original comment suggested that having an American die at Benghazi during his presidency made him the worst president ever. Now it's just "part" of the reason


Your problem is that, besides being gutless, you're borderline illiterate. The original comment which got your panties in a wad was:

"Under Carter we merely had Americans taken hostage in Iran. Under Obama we had the US Ambassador to Libya murdered. And Carters economy was vastly better than Obama's."

Notice that this mentions reasons other that just the death of the US Ambassador to Libya and his staff for Obama being the worst ever President. It takes a pretty stoopid person to pretend that "Oh, now you're changing your story", but you're just that sort of person.

Severn said...

Listen, you low-class New York trash, even if FDR and Bush were less responsible


"Less responsible", as in, you know, not responsible at all.

Just a couple more weeks and you'll be crying in your beer as your Messiah takes an early retirement.

Anonymous said...

I mean the whole event and its long aftermath of strange coincidences and unlikely occurences, CIA or not, is the Mother of all Coincidences.
Trillions to one, according to one statistician.


Really? Which statistician? And exactly how did he go about calculating that number?

(This should be good! :-)

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

If by sensible you mean "stupid", sure. One of those two men will be the next President. There is no third option. Voting for Gary Johnson is masturbation, at best. Advocating that other people vote for Johnson is Dem dirty tricks."

No, voting for Romney is masturbation. The Republicans will take your vote and laugh at you as they sell your country down the river. Vote for whomever they put up, and they'll keep putting that kind of guy up for election.

One of Romney's senior campaign people said that this would be the last election in which the Republicans seek to win based only on appeals to the white vote. Gosh! This campaign has been appealing to whites? This is what the Republican party looks like when it's shamelessly pandering to whites? Based on that, what will they be like when they are not explicity appealing to whites? Will they speak only spanish? Will they get mexican soap-opera stars and wrestlers to speak at their convention?

Demonstrate a willingness to eat crap, and crap is all that you shall ever be given to eat.

Besides, nobody who posts here is going to decide this election. Even if you live in a battleground state, those races are decided by people who only just recently learned that Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate - people who probably don't know the names of both their senators or the name of even one supreme court justice. Undecideds decide presidential races.

We're doomed.

Severn said...

Your original comment suggested that having an American die at Benghazi during his presidency made him the worst president ever. Now it's just "part" of the reason.


As I pointed out in a comment which seems to be stuck in limbo, you're lying. The original comment which got your panties in a wad was:

"Under Carter we merely had Americans taken hostage in Iran. Under Obama we had the US Ambassador to Libya murdered. And Carters economy was vastly better than Obama's."

You might notice that this gives reasons beyond Libya for Obama being the worst President. It does not "suggest" that "having an American die at Benghazi during his presidency made him the worst president ever". Which is why I described you as illiterate.

Severn said...

W got us into an unnecessary war in Iraq that killed 4,486 US soldiers


The Congress of the United States and the American people felt that it was a necessary war. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Matthew said...

"He was also a draft dodger. I believe the mission helped him do so."

He ran out of deferments in 1969, when the war was at its peak (worse than in 1966, in fact, when he left on his mission). The draft number for his birthday (March 12) was 300. He wasn't called up.

Should he have served anyway? Maybe. But Barack didn't serve. Joe Biden (also draft eligible during Vietnam) didn't serve. Point me to a candidate likely to win who did serve. There isn't one.

Matthew said...

"He was also a draft dodger. I believe the mission helped him do so." - Lol, I believe the mission WAS to do so.

Right, because a 5th generation Mormon and member of the Mormon aristocracy, with relatives and ancestors at some of the highest levels of Mormon leadership (see: Parley Pratt, Marion G. Romney - both LDS apostles), would otherwise not have gone on a mission.

People who haven't been Mormon or known a lot of Mormons don't understand - missions for young Mormon men are the norm, not the exception. If you a churchgoing 19-year-old Mormon man, you go on a mission. Mormons during Vietnam had no moral obligation to forgo this long established tradition while U.S. congressmen and their patrons were busy exempting their college-going children.

Matthew said...

"One of Romney's senior campaign people said that this would be the last election in which the Republicans seek to win based only on appeals to the white vote."

If they do better in Pennsylvania than in Nevada they'll learn where their strength lies. My hope is that Romney win Pennsylvania and loses Nevada, and not just because PA has more electors.

Anonymous said...

"Less responsible", as in, you know, not responsible at all.

Actually, your reasoning is even more moronic if you consider that Gaddafi had actual direct ties to terrorism against the West - from the German disco bombing, to Lockerbie, to funding and arming the IRA and supplying them with Semtex, etc. Bush attacked regimes that weren't involved in terrorism against the West like Gaddafi was, and in the aftermath, got thousands of Americans killed.

Just a couple more weeks and you'll be crying in your beer as your Messiah takes an early retirement.

I don't like Obama. I'm right-wing. The last presidential candidate I was enthusiastic about was Buchanan.

Severn said...

Steve seems to be taking moderating lessons from Candy Crowley. Either that or Google is eating my comments all of a sudden.

Anonymous said...

People who haven't been Mormon or known a lot of Mormons don't understand - missions for young Mormon men are the norm, not the exception. If you a churchgoing 19-year-old Mormon man, you go on a mission. Mormons during Vietnam had no moral obligation to forgo this long established tradition while U.S. congressmen and their patrons were busy exempting their college-going children.

I posted the "draft dodger" comment. I already knew that it's the norm for Mormon men. I had a Mormon friend in college who left after 2 years to go on mission and returned to college after we had all graduated.

I'm not saying he's any worse than other scummy politicians and draft dodgers. They're all scum. But his religious tradition and the fact that others did it doesn't excuse his draft dodging. I don't think there should be any religious exemptions for any men during a time of war when other men have to go.

Anonymous said...

The Congress of the United States and the American people felt that it was a necessary war. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Here are some facts:

Qaddafy was directly involved in terrorism against the West. He was overthrown, and then 4 Americans were killed.

Neither Saddam Hussein nor the Taliban were involved in terrorism against the West - they attacked Shias, Kurds, Iranians, other Iraqis and Afghans, etc. They were overthrown, and then 4,486 Americans were killed.

Severn said...

I don't like Obama. I'm right-wing.


And yet for some curious reason, you're terribly pissed off at criticism of Obama. And you defend his illegal war in Libya.

You're a liar.

Anonymous said...

He ran out of deferments in 1969, when the war was at its peak (worse than in 1966, in fact, when he left on his mission). The draft number for his birthday (March 12) was 300. He wasn't called up.

Romney received 4 college deferments, and a religious deferment.

Anonymous said...

And yet for some curious reason, you're terribly pissed off at criticism of Obama. And you defend his illegal war in Libya.

You're a liar.


No, I just think you're wrong and stupid.

I don't defend Obama's illegal war in Libya. However, the fact remains that Gaddafi had actual direct ties to terrorism against the West, and his removal cost 4 American lives. Whereas Saddam and the Taliban had no ties to terror against the West and their removal cost thousands of American lives (not to mention countless lost limbs, damaged brains, catastrophic injuries, etc.). Bush looks a lot worse here.

Matthew said...

"But his religious tradition and the fact that others did it doesn't excuse his draft dodging. I don't think there should be any religious exemptions for any men during a time of war when other men have to go."

A draft exemption for religious reasons and one for educational reasons are morally no different. There is nothing worse about his having been exempted for serving a mission than all those other people exempted for attending college. That was the policy. It sucked. It was absolutely wrong. But it was the policy.

And he did not "dodge" the draft. He registered and he got a high draft number. Lucky him.

Severn said...

Your original comment suggested that having an American die at Benghazi during his presidency made him the worst president ever. Now it's just "part" of the reason.

I'm going to keep posting this comment until it appears. Even if that takes until after the new year, which seems to be the case here. Right, Steve?

The comment which the illiterate moron is referring to is this one.

"Under Carter we merely had Americans taken hostage in Iran. Under Obama we had the US Ambassador to Libya murdered. And Carters economy was vastly better than Obama's."

Those with an IQ above room temperature will notice that Obama's Libyan screwup was always "part" of the reason but not all of it.

Severn said...

Qaddafy was directly involved in terrorism against the West. He was overthrown, and then 4 Americans were killed.

You're what is called, in technical terms, "a lying sack of shit".

Qaddafy was directly involved in terrorism against the West.

Then, for a long time, he wasn't.

Then he was overthrown, for reasons which nobody has explained to this day.

Then the Islamic nutjobs we assisted in overthrowing him killed the US Ambassador.

These are what are called "facts".

Truth said...

" If you a churchgoing 19-year-old Mormon man, you go on a mission."

If you're a 19-year-old REAL man, who wants serve his country in the military, you serve your country in the military. A man makes his own decisions, Period.

Severn said...

Neither Saddam Hussein nor the Taliban were involved in terrorism against the West - they attacked Shias, Kurds, Iranians, other Iraqis and Afghans, etc.


Your problem is with reality, not with George W Bush. It wasn't Big Bad Dubya who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq - it was the Unites States of America, in accordance with votes by the United States Congress.

I gather that you're still really, really pissed off at being on the losing side in those two debates. Try to move on with your life.

Anonymous said...

A draft exemption for religious reasons and one for educational reasons are morally no different. There is nothing worse about his having been exempted for serving a mission than all those other people exempted for attending college. That was the policy. It sucked. It was absolutely wrong. But it was the policy.

I agree. Although it's not that relevant since he received both types.

And he did not "dodge" the draft. He registered and he got a high draft number. Lucky him.

I think if you pursue deferments which not every young man pursues or is eligible to receive, then you are draft dodging.

Anonymous said...

And yet for some curious reason, you're terribly pissed off at criticism of Obama. And you defend his illegal war in Libya.

You're a liar.


No, I just think you're wrong and stupid.

I don't defend Obama's illegal war in Libya. However, the fact remains that Gaddafi had actual direct ties to terrorism against the West, and his removal cost 4 American lives. Whereas Saddam and the Taliban had no ties to terror against the West and their removal cost thousands of American lives (not to mention countless lost limbs, damaged brains, catastrophic injuries, etc.). Bush looks a lot worse here.

Severn said...

Your original comment suggested that having an American die at Benghazi during his presidency made him the worst president ever. Now it's just "part" of the reason.


No, you cretin, my original comment made it clear that Obama's Libyan disaster was only one of several reason he was the worst president ever.

"Under Carter we merely had Americans taken hostage in Iran. Under Obama we had the US Ambassador to Libya murdered. And Carters economy was vastly better than Obama's."

Anonymous said...

Qaddafy was directly involved in terrorism against the West.

Then, for a long time, he wasn't.

Then he was overthrown, for reasons which nobody has explained to this day.

Then the Islamic nutjobs we assisted in overthrowing him killed the US Ambassador.


Yes, and unlike Qaddafy, neither Saddam Hussein nor the Taliban were involved in terrorism against the West. They were overthrown, and then 4,486 Americans were killed by various Islamic nutjobs, many of whom we've helped and trained.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 237   Newer› Newest»