Debate #3: How Much Does Foreign Policy Matter If You Can’t Find a Job?

When more than 20 million Americans are out of work, or working only part time because that’s the best they can do, or are so discouraged that they’ve stopped looking for jobs, I’m not sure how much a foreign policy debate matters to voters.

President Obama came off, well, as presidential in debate number 3.  But so did Mitt Romney.  Mr. Obama may have dominated much of the debate – I think he did — but Romney passed the commander-in-chief test.  You could picture him calling the shots in the Oval Office. He was knowledgeable and well informed.  As Brit Hume said on Fox: It didn’t hurt Romney that he didn’t have broad disagreements with the president.  He didn’t have to.

The Obama campaign has been trying to portray Romney as a warmonger for some time now, realizing that Americans are weary of war and don’t want a president who will take us into yet another military quagmire.  But during the debate, it was Romney who came off as the peace candidate, saying, “We can’t kill our way out of this mess” and telling the president that “attacking me is not an agenda.”

For much of the night, I thought Romney played defense.  It looked to me like he was sitting on the lead he had built up since the first debate and running out the clock.  I’m not sure that was the best strategy.  But he was strong when he accused the president of going on an “apology tour” soon after he took office.  The president predictably said this wasn’t true.  But when you tell an audience in Cairo that America hasn’t lived up to its values – that sounds like an apology to me. Americans don’t like our president going overseas and apologizing to people who would have trouble spelling “democracy.”

But Romney could have, to cite just one example, pressed the president on Libya, on how the American Embassy asked for more security and was turned down – and how four Americans were then killed.  On how the president blamed a cheesy anti-Muslim video for rioting in Benghazi that apparently never took place.  He could have said the president is engaging even now in a cover up — for political reasons. But Romney didn’t do any of those things.  Conservatives will wish Romney were tougher.  We’ll find out how this played in living rooms between Manhattan and Malibu.

Romney was strongest on domestic issues, reminding voters how dismal the president’s economic record has been, and causing me to tweet, “too bad this is a foreign policy debate.”

For parts of the debate Romney reminded me of Mr. Obama in debate number 1.  Too low key.  On the other side of the coin, the president was in constant attack mode.  I thought a lot of it worked.  We’ll have to see how “tough” plays with the un-decides.

On CNN, James Carville said, “Obama came to attack, Romney came to agree.”  There’s some truth in that.  But then Carville concluded that, Mr. Obama won in a rout. That, to me, sounded like wishful thinking.

Ever since the first debate the momentum has been moving in Mitt Romney’s favor.  Nothing that happened in this debate will change any minds already made up.  We will know soon enough if it changed those minds still in flux – or if a debate on foreign policy just doesn’t matter all that much if you’re worried about paying the bills.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • terry


  • Boogoo

    Being out of work is terrible … But if we aren’t safe nothing matters, including jobs. So, IMO, national security does matter. Also when someone lies to me about anything, I find it hard to think that anything that person says is the truth. How can we elect a President that lies about so much. As far as Mitt talking about Libia goes, if he did he would just get hammered for it. There is no up side for giving the libral media anything else to trash him about. He’s even been trashed when he’s tried to help out after the storm.

  • terry


  • Patricia

    Gollliieeee Bernie!  This is Goober and frum meye trayler eye agrie with ewe!!  Crap people – when your last lord and savior, George Bush, was president that is all you could talk about was foreign policy.  It was to the point of ridiculous where anytime anyone would criticize Bush for anything, Fox News and the righties would jump up and down and claim that no one should be allowed to criticize the president during a “time of war”  Big F*cking Deal!!  We are still at war, but you dumbsh*ts don’t mind now critizing the current president.  Oh never mind – keep blabbing on there Bernie, and prostituting yourself to Fox News for some loose change.

    • Wheels55

      Typical liberal – still yaking about Bush. You do know Obummer’s slogan is “Forward”, right? So, why do you sap suckin’ liberals always look backwards?

      • Mario__P

        Typical GOP BS, completely ignoring the history to avoid making the same mistakes. 

        The Right was so gung-ho about Al Qaeda in the early 2000’s, not only was the war in Afghanistan waged because of Taliban harboring the terrorists, Bush2 even tried to make a connection between Saddam and the Islamic extremists. Once it became evident W would not capture his #1 target, the whole war on terror was downplayed, including the importance of eliminating Bin Laden. Funny how priorities change based on lack of achievements.

        Today, the Right is downplaying the importance of foreign policy, because that is the weakness of their candidate. 

  • jujubeebee

    There was no need to press on Libya.  Those who watched it unfold know Obama is lying.  Those who didn’t watch it unfold could have investigated after debate #2 as they showed the candy crowley clip non-stop and the ignorant vote demographic was going to Obama anyway.   Men wanted that fight.   Romney was going after the soccer moms who were too busy to pay any attention to politics until now.   He did it brilliantly.   He allowed the contrast to be on display.   Obama, smirky and being petty with snarky remarks and Romney making the case that he has experience with budgets, running a state, being successful at business, working well with the opposition, being calm, sensible and presidential.   I would not call Obama presidential.   He was at times childish and the contrast showed.   Romney was going after the women’s vote in the 3rd debate and even though he had me at hello I got it.   You men wanted a fight.  Romney made his case to the voter demographic he was going after.   Debate points didn’t matter.
    Obama almost wanted him to bring up Libya and was probably ready with a lie, or a snarky answer put down.  Romney was the winner in that 3rd debate despite what all the pundits are saying.

  • ivannavi

    Keep the faith and rally the base with the fact that the economy sucks.

    If we want a person has had a track record of fixing bad situations around they should vote for Romney!

    If anyone wants more of this collective dismal situation (the economy, etc.) then they should vote for Obama.

    • jujubeebee

      Romney’s base has been ready and waiting for 4 years to vote.   Obama is all lies and he will get the ignorant voters with his little wordplays like middle out, romnesia, etc.     It just isn’t worth stooping down to that level with gimics.   Romney is the full package~has more experience dealing with financial situations, opposing viewpoints, etc.  
      Romney was not stooping to Obama’s level because he knew all that was coming out was lies anyway and he would be wasting every precious minute of that debate trying to defend against each and every lie.   Instead he made his case for the economy and we all know that is priority number one.   Those who wanted a fight this last debate were already voting for Romney.
      Women want a president they can be proud of.  Romney showed himself to be that man.   By contrast you have Obama smirking and doing the personal attacks.  Women don’t want an arrogant coward who hides behind the skirts of Joy Bahar, Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jon Stewart and Pimp the Limp.  
      You can cut his debate points but he is going to win this!

  • brendan horn

    The main thing about the debate is that Romney held his own on an issue that is not the most important issue of the election. The main issue is the economy and Romney destroyed Obama whenever the economy has been discussed. 

    Bin Laden is dead, and the economy is on life support. It is obvious who the people should vote for. People should vote for someone who understands economics, and what businesses need to succeed. 

  • rlpincus

     No, rickshaw.  Romney’s got 7 billion more in deficit spending, another round of trickle down economics, the international experience of a pirate, fanatic religious exceptionalism,  social elitism, and a personal core that changes with the channels. 

    Oh, and throw Ryan’s love of stimulus packages in there.

    • nickshaw

       You do realize that you shouldn’t just repeat DNC / Zero talking points so that you don’t sound like all you are doing is repeating DNC / Zero talking points, don’t you, Helen?
      Only other robots will believe you if you sound like C3PO!
      Hey, while I’ve got your attention, what do you think of the revelation that Zero knew there was an attack going on in Benghazi a mere 20-30 minutes after it started?
      Zero’s 3AM phone call came at 4 in the afternoon and he still didn’t do anything about it!
      About five hours later he knew the ambassador was missing or dead and he went to bed to be fresh as a daisy for his fundraiser in Vegas!
      All the while the media is making hay about Mitt’s comments regarding an apology to the muslim world issued by the embassy in Cairo!
      You just can’t make this stuff up!
      It’s kinda’ like the fact that Zero was playing golf when the UBL raid started.
      You’ve (and, sadly, many of us!) backed a loser and a losing ideology, Helen.
      We won’t be sucked in again for a long, long time.

    • rlpincus

       Yeah, you sound like such an independent thinker.  I’m so impressed.  Oh wait.  You’ll pretend that you take that as a compliment and thank me.  So let’s skip past your usual response and get to the well deserved silence.

  • potvin

    I don’t think his goofy “Obama stare” did him any favors.

  • FloridaJim

    I wish he would have at least exposed the lies related to Benghazi and Hillary, Obama, Cutter and Rice lying for two weeks and still, today, still clouding the issue with false videos. Obama lied blatantly looking at the camera and saying “apology tour, that is the biggest whopper in the campaign” as Romney pointed out the countries and the lies, which everyone knows and agrees with. Obama taught the Alinsky Method in Rules For Radicals to ACORN slugs and other community organizing trainees while in Chicago where he learned and taught how to lie and appear truthful, not a born trait. 

    • Wheels55

      I sort of wish he had done so as well. However, these lies have been and continue to be exposed. It will be interesting to see if the liberal media decides if they are journalists and report the truth or if they are Obama supporters and continue to cover this up. All during this election, many of the liberal media look like hacks.

    • jujubeebee

      My feeling was that Obama was ready and waiting for Romney to bring up Benghazi and would have produced yet another lie to coverup.   Obama’s whole campaign stategy is to lie.  People can see Benghazi situation for what it is.  Obama probably practiced his retort all day and was probably disappointed it was not brought up.   Romney was the businessman applying for the job he wants and Obama was his usual self…the lawyer with petty attacks and lies.   The contrast was on display.  This contrast is going to get Romney the voters he didn’t have.   He already had you Jim and he already had me!   All Obama has is slogans.  He has no plan….so the ONLY voters he can get are the ones who buy into….let’s see ….war on women, romneyhood, big bird, binders, romnesia, middle out.   He thinks this is about ad slogans.  Middle out is the most disturbing because he has printed money three times and that has squeezed the middle class and taken more than taxes out of their pockets.

      • FloridaJim

        You and I agree. Now we need several million others to agree and vote or America is doomed to become Greece.

  • Bruskie

    A bad economy, yes this is a problem for the Obama administration.  However, foreign policy drove the steak into the heart of the Carter presidency and I’m afraid that it will be the same “quagmire” for President Obama.  The Democrats always seem to have a problem with the Middle Eastern countries.  Most Americans can’t wrap our heads around these cultures let alone the bleeding heart Liberal Americans.  The Libya issue is now playing out and it’s bad for Obama, probably the end of his Presidency.  Too bad, I think President Obama was a true believer!

    • Drew Page

      Obama lied and people died.    The Dems had no problem with this slogan when they used Bush’s name.    So I believe it is totally appropriate to use it now in reference to Behghazi.  I”m not upset that he blamed the embassy attacks on the video.   But I am outraged that he and/or Hillary didn’t provide the additional security for which our ambassador begged.    Iam outraged that the President didn’t immediately send our troops, stationed in Italy, to Benghazi upon receiving the e-mails from the consulate saying they were under attack.   Reports say that two of the Americans were killed seven hours after the White House received e-mails notifying them they were under attack.  Had our troops been deployed immediately, they may have been able to save at least two of the Americans from being killed.  And now in the aftermath, their attempt to equate the e-mails from Benghazi to Facebook erata is really sickening and contemptable.

      • Bruskie

        Yes, but Obama was too bust trying to be re-elected.  You’re priorities are not straight!

      • Mario__P

        “Obama lied and people died.    The Dems had no problem with this slogan when they used Bush’s name.”

        We know Bush2 lied, and then people died. What did Obama lie about that caused the deaths in Benghazi?

        • Jeffreydan

            Whoa, kiddo! President Bush didn’t lie about anything, so quit “knowing” that if you don’t mind.

        • Mario__P


          Oh no, I don’t want to enter that debate again. But I will assume Bush2 didn’t lie, so therefore his judgment was poor. He either misjudged the intelligence in Iraq, which the rest of the world managed to interpret correctly . Or he misjudged how to correctly declare a war, by not taking the proper precautions to avoid the embarrassment of being wrong on such a giant scale. Is that better for you? My apologies.

      • jujubeebee

        I’m outraged he is hiding behind Letterman, Leno, Jon Stewart and The View.   A while back all we got was press conferences to the point of being sick of his voice and seeing his face and now he is hiding out.   I guess this is called securing your base.   He thinks he is a celebrity but he is an arrogant coward.

  • Brett


    Did you notice that in the last 36 hours or so, letters and numbers (aka asl/3676 or whatever), has disappeared, after I threw down the gauntlet and asked him to put up or shut up with my offer about putting comments on this website . Romney wins, he never comments again, Obama wins , I never comment again. What say you? And be kind to Helen, he’s probably very sensitive.

    • CCNV


      Keep those comments coming! I’m guessing asl’s panties are in a bunch due to the revelations (of his lying boyfriend obammy) in past 24 hours. As a result, this might have caused his a(s)s(ho)l(e) to pucker up and stop functioning, thus, creating a terrible headache.

  • suki33

    Oh the wailing in ‘conservative punditville’ by ones who wish they could have been whispering instructions in Romney’s ear. Only Charles Krauthammer seemed to trust Romney’s instincts last night, even though he also said he’d like to have heard a more vigorous performance.

    Before the debate I had hoped that Romney would  set aside the testerone that was swirling around last week’s debate. I trust that he knows how to close deals, and you don’t do that successfully by beating your opponent into the mud. The truth about Libya will come out, and news on Fox News tonight shows that it is coming out.

    Chris Wallace said after the debate that if you didn’t know better you would think Romney was the confident incumbent and Obama the challenger. I don’t see anything wrong with leaving people who are undecided with a final image from the debate of a candidate calm demeanor and a willingness to listen before deciding what needs to be responded to. 

    Last impressions are very important and so is having the grace to ask people for their votes instead of assuming you are entitled to it.

  • Mario__P

    By looking at all these initial posts, every one defying the obvious, I sense a great despair.

  • Phil Silverman

    What’s your point? Foreign policy does not matter or SHOULD NOT matter to someone looking 4 a job? You’re saying Romney’s “12 million new jobs” statement with ZERO plan will inspire them? I have never read one word by you about the Obstruction of Obama’s jobs and infrastructure bills, the returning of stimulus $$$$, and the outsourcing of VIABLE American jobs. Not convenient to your role as cheerleader for Fox?

    • Ted Crawford

      Romney HAS explained how he intends to create an environment for Private Sector job growth. The reduction of tax bases, coupled with the closing of ‘loop-holes’ and the reforming of our regulatory agencies will be a hugh beginning. When we add the reduction of Government spending in programs that are either nonproductive or adaquately funded by other sources, such as PBS, and Planned Parenthood, and the repeal of PPACA, you have a very healthy environment, ripe for job creation!
      You seem to be confusing the TARP program with the Stimulus plan. The money that is being returned to the Treasury is from the TARP fund(+$23 Billion) not the Stimulus plan(-$100 Billion)! As many Progressives are quick to remind, when they think it will benifit them, the TARP plan was requested by and granted to the Bush ’43’ Administration!! The Stimulus, on the other hand, is strictly an Obama administration program!   

    • rider237

       not the point.  if you can find my earlier post, i tried to explain my thoughts on it.  in a nutshell, foreign policy doesn’t matter to the target audience (undecided) because they are to uninformed to even know what’s being discussed.  they would tune it out, or turn it off.

      they do, however, shop, put gas in the car, and send kids to school.  the economy they can’t avoid and even if they don’t understand it, they feel it.

      “it’s the economy, stupid” because so many of the people are….well….stupid.

    • Ahalbert

      Romney has given a 5 point plan. Obviously you haven’t listened.

  • Randy

    Re: Mr. Obama’s
    horses and bayonets remark.

    Sir, The army
    and marines still train with bayonets.   It’s called “hand to hand combat training”.  And have you forgotten our Green Beret troops
    having to ride horses when they first entered Afghanistan?

    • Mario__P

      What a sore loser.

    • Phil Silverman

      maybe his point is: we do not need a 1947 type military build up.

    • Bob Hadley


      You need to pay attention.  President Obama said that the military has LESS horses and bayonets now than we had back a hundred or so years ago.   President Obama did NOT say that we have NO bayonets and horses in the military.

      Are you the Randy in those GEICO commercials?  :)  j/k 

      • Ted Crawford

        Agreed Bob. However, perhaps some attention might be warrented, depending on who one believes will be our likely opponent should a major war breakout, to the fact that China, over the past few years has increased their spending on their Military by over  400%! Saddly they are able to fund about 75% of this with just our interest payments on our debt to them! You might say, they have the best military Obama can buy them!

        • Wheels55

          I agree that China and any other countries that flex military might need to be held at bay with a strong military.

        • Mario__P

          I would like to add (a la Al Franken) that in 1864 Lincoln has requested 190K horses for the Civil War. In 1984 Reagan has requested 3 horses for the Cold War. Why did Reagan gut our military?

        • Bob Hadley

          From several presidents ago, we’ve funded China’s military (in more ways than one) and China has funded our miltitary.  Is there a point you’d like to make? 

  • Brian_Bayless

    If Romney wins, you can point to the first debate as the reason. With the video coming out about the 47%, Obama needed to kill him with that in order to sustain momentum. Instead, Romney came out firing and Obama had no clue as how to react. This debate about foreign policy isnt one that will sway voters so Mitt played it cool, which was smart. The Romney campaign is killing Obama right now, especially in debate strategies. Obama needs people to give him clever ideas to hide the fact that he is a lightweight. Right now, I’d say that Mitt narrowly wins the election.

    However, if Mitt loses, I think it might be partly due to the 12 million jobs comments he makes all the time. He hasnt explained how job growth will occur well enough to make that number not seem like it was just made up to get votes.

    • wally

      Romney’s plan is very straight forward. One of his first items is to make the US energy independent. Its the first step and a very important step in increasing employment. Romney has stated that Obama’s policy is a “Government Trickle Down” policy. That means that the government gives tax payer money to some entity and in the energy sector it is the green energies such as Solyndra and hopes that it will succeed and create jobs. We know by all the bankruptcies that it hasn’t worked. Romney didn’t say it but his plan can be called a “Trickle Down Economic” policy. The difference between Obama’s and Mitt’s plan is that Obama uses tax payer funds while Mitt uses private funds. Which one would you rather use? For me it definitely is to use private funds. Mitt’s plan of making the US energy independent creates jobs in the following manner. Take out the roadblocks in oil  and gas drilling, coal mining , nuclear and even the green energies and let the ones who can compete succeed. As more oil and gas comes on line, the price of gas and oil will drop. The greater US supply will have downward pressure on foreign oil producers to do the same. The oil speculators will not be as able to cause price hikes. The price of gas will decrease by up to $2 per gallon. This will save the average driver $800 per year. This $800 dollars will enable the poor and everyone more dollars to spend on other necessities and stimulate the economy. The savings by a trucker will save $60000 per year and will result in savings to the stores and ultimately the consumer. Again the economy will be stimulated to permit purchase of other products and services. Even the government will realize savings in that the poor with more money will not require as many food stamps. Similar savings and stimulus will occur in manufacturing etc. I hope you and others get the true picture of how Mitt’s plan gets the US moving again without government money and interference. 

      • Mario__P


        Regarding your vision of Romney’s plan to lower the current nationally averaged $3.6/gallon gasoline price, how do you envision the oil companies would invest billions into expanding their infrastructure in North America so they could drive the oil price down to about $50 per barrel, since you’re seeking approximate gasoline price of below $2/gallon? Why would an oil company burn through its current profits so they can cut down on future profits? 

        By the way, it costs about $65/barrel to pump and transport oil from North American offshore platforms. So with your target crude price of $50, do you foresee the oil production on those platforms shutting down?

        Also, it costs $70-$95/barrel to extract oil from shale. Do you foresee those operations to also take a hiatus?

        • jujubeebee

          Mario,  if Obama wasn’t printing money then it would buy more.  Prices increased on everything….not just gas and this was part of the reason.   Obama is spending more and borrowing more and money needed to be printed to cover it.   How long can that go on?

        • Mario__P


          So are you saying Wally’s vision of Romney’s plan for economic recovery is false? Romney will not be able to lower the price of gasoline by up to $2/gallon because of the extra money being printed, increasing the rate of inflation?

          If inflation is the cause of the increase in oil and gasoline prices, then why are the inflation rates under Obama no higher than under Bush2?

          Historic Inflation Rates By Year:
          2000 = 3.4%
          2001 = 2.8%
          2002 = 1.6%
          2003 = 2.3%
          2004 = 2.7%
          2005 = 3.4%
          2006 = 3.2%
          2007 = 2.9%
          2008 = 3.9%
          Average = 3.3%

          2009 = -0.3%
          2010 = 1.6%
          2011 = 3.2%
          2012 = 2.1% (assumed)
          Average = 1.7%

          So, based on the above data, inflation is not the reason for the higher gasoline and oil prices under Obama.

      • jujubeebee

        Choice:  Obama’s socialism~he invested Taxpayer money in these now bankrupt companies:   Solyndra, Ener1, Beacon Power, Abound Solar, Amonix Solar, Spectra Watt, Eastern Energy ~~~~~~~~~~~all bankrupt and ALL of these companies were Obama campaign contributors.
        Romney’s Free Market Bain Capital invested PRIVATE money in:
        AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Dominoes Pizza, Guitar Center, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys R Us, Warner Music Group
        So who is better equipped to handle the economy and our taxpayer money?

        • Mario__P

          How about you list some of the companies Bain Capital pillaged and drove into bankruptcy? Romney doesn’t even know how to run a legitimate business, without abusing loopholes and taking advantage of his connections and desperate conditions.

      • Mario__P


        I see you didn’t reply yet to my questions below regarding your theory how Romney will lower the price of gasoline. It appears you’re diligently still working on your reply. I have a coupe more questions regarding your theory:

        Since it will take a good decade to expand the oil infrastructure to the level where it would lower the price of gasoline by up to $2, how does this plan deal with the gasoline price until then, and therefore the improvement of the economy?

        Why have the oil companies been sitting on federal land leases for decades without drilling on them? If the oil companies truly wanted to drill more to lower the price of crude, wouldn’t they be expanding their infrastructure over those oil fields?

    • jujubeebee

      Honestly,  I think businesses will breathe a sigh of relief if Romney wins and start hiring right off the bat.  I think making numbers of jobs is a bit silly but they both do that.   Even if Romney wins Obama will be trying to get those treaties through the senate.  We could be taxed on a number of things by the UN and have no way out.  Too bad the congress is excluded on that.   I wish those young voters could realize that Obama wants to have the UN tax them on internet use.   Obama is going after the youth because they are easy prey.

  • venter

    Mitt did what he had to do.  He  went out to win over many new people.  He looked and acted like a president.  I would have liked him to be more aggressive .  But, that would have been for  us  out here (we are angry about Libya and much more)  he is running for president.  Obama acted mean, arrogant,  and disrespectifully. Obama  says anything intentional or unintentional because it won’t be report truthfully by the MSM. .Obama’s .   body language was offensive to watch.   Romney did the right  thing and not over  talk foreign policy because Obama would have more info since he is the president. However every time the president says something I feel I have to go to Snopes.

    • Mario__P

      Ah.. I get it. Romney did his sleazy salesman pitch by switching to the liberal foreign policy. He knew the conservative one would not win anyone over. Too bad Romney doesn’t realize the Left is not as easily fooled as the first half of the nation was. 

      • venter

        Everyone knows Romney is not a super right wing consevative.  He is a man who understood the world was watching and his choice to show that  he can debate in a Presidential way was important.  We agree that most of the  Left is not going to vote for him (I know a few are) and Romney knew it too..  But there are others with open minds still looking to make their right decision.

        • Mario__P

          Please explain to me why he changed his policy for the various Mideast countries from a week ago?

        • Ted Crawford

          Romney didn’t “change his policies” he simply, more fully explained them. For example; he agreed with the concept of Sanctions, but explained that the current sanctions do not go far enough!
          It’s similar to the Stimulus, the concept of a Government Stimulus fund is a very sound one. The problems with the current one is where Obama chose to spend them!
          A stimulus, to be effective, needs to be administered in the same fashion as Triage’  is applied after a major catastrophe. Those most likely to survive recieve the first attention and first access to the available assets! 

        • Mario__P


          It’s easy to criticize anything the president does by saying “do it more”. The current sanctions against Iran have destroyed the Iranian economy, causing a 400% inflation in their nation and ruined the value of their currency by 80%. Ok, so Romney would have destroyed their economy by imposing more severe sanctions and lowered the value of their currency by 90%? Woopty-doo. No matter how severe Obama’s sanctions are, Romney can always say to sanction more. 

          What is the problem with Obama’s stimulus plan? The plan cost money? Well, since when does it not cost money to repair our nation’s infrastructure? And that money employed workers which would have lined up into the unemployment line to receive free government money. The stimulus plan repaired and built up our infrastructure, at the cost to the government, instead of just handing out the money to the unemployed, at the cost to our government. So what’s so bad about that plan?

      • Drew Page

        What do you mean the Left isn’t easily fooled?   You people are the morons who voted the empty suit into office.  It isn’t Romney that drove up the national debt by $6 trillion in less than four years.   When Bush drove up the debt by $4 trillion over eight years, Obama called him irresponsible and unpatriotic.   What does that make Obama?  Romney hasn’t been president over the past four years where unemployment has run over 8% every month since 1/1/09.  Your guy is the one who presided over the doubling of gas prices, n0t Romney.    So go ahead, in typical liberal fashion, and villianize the guy who was not in charge, instead of the guy that was.    Obama has broken every campaign promise he made in 2008 and you call Romney sleezy.   Mario, go back to where you belong.

        • Mario__P

          Drew, I find it comical when someone like you calls another a moron.
          “It isn’t Romney that drove up the national debt by $6 trillion in less than four years.”

          When Obama’s first budget was enacted on October 1, 2009, the debt was at $11.9T. It is currently at $16T. $16T – $11.9T = $4.1T. Therefore, Obama’s three budgets added just over $4T to the debt, not the $6T you claim.

          “When Bush drove up the debt by $4 trillion over eight years,…”

          When the last Clinton budget expired on 9/30/2001, the debt was at $5.8T. $11.9T – $5.8T = $6.1T. Therefore Bush2’s eight budgets added just over $6T to the debt, not the $4T you claim. Don’t forget Bush2 inherited a surplus, while Obama inherited record setting deficits, decreased tax revenue, increased social services costs, and two wars.

          “Romney hasn’t been president over the past four years where unemployment has run over 8% every month since 1/1/09.”

          Bush2 was the president on 1/1/09. The unemployment was at 7.8% that January. The rate was 7.3% in December of 2008, 6.8% in November 2008, 6.5% in October 2008, and 6.1% in September. Maybe you didn’t notice the pattern in the unemployment rate during Bush2’s final months, and maybe you missed the economic disaster Bush2 left Obama, so that may explain the rate being above 8% for the last few years. There was no Republican president who faced such a mess Obama did, yet you think with the Republican presidents’ history, one would do a better job. That belief is odd, especially since over the last half a century, the Republican presidents on average have been increasing the unemployment rate by 0.2 percentage points every year they were in power.   

          “Your guy is the one who presided over the doubling of gas prices, not Romney.”

          Do you think maybe the state of the economy had anything to do why the price of gasoline was so low in early 2009? Maybe? What do you think Bush2 did to drive the gas prices to such low levels, other than crashing the economy?

          “Obama has broken every campaign promise he made in 2008 and you call Romney sleazy.”

          Obama pulled out of Iraq. He passed Obamacare. … hey, why don’t you read the ten pages of the promises Obama kept.

          “Mario, go back to where you belong.”

          Drew, go back to school. And if you’re in school, stay there a bit longer than initially planned.

      • jujubeebee

        Mario, Romney has not changed his foreign policy.  Strength does not always translate into war. 
        And Obama did go on an apology tour. 
        Romney said he would not have told the enemy he was withdrawing troups by a deadline…..that is not the same as not withdrawing the troups.
        Hugo Chavez endorsed Obama.  That should be enough for anyone to vote against Obama.

        • Mario__P

          “Mario, Romney has not changed his foreign policy.”

          In the 3rd debate Romney said that he would pull out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, period. When did you hear Romney say that before the debate?
          In the 3rd debate Romney said that war would be the very last resort, after all the other options have failed. I thought Ryan said he would not partake in UN’s decisions because of Russia’s and China’s veto power, and would take care of business around the world as needed. That doesn’t sound like starting a war would be the very last resort, because being involved in the UN should take precedence over entering a war.

    • Phil Silverman

      disrespectfully? did U watch even one minute of the GOP debates? :)

      • jujubeebee

        I watched every second of the GOP debates and Romney was presidential in all of them.

      • venter

        Obama  was being disrespectful to the people watching.    The independents,  democrates, republicans  wanted information.  He was trying to be tough, it was like being a bully because he always has the MSM  behind him  The president represents us ,how he acts is how people will think Americans treat  each other .   Does the president have to use the words “b— S—”  in public campaigning. Should young people hear this.  Isn’t that disrespectful to the listeners?

        • Mario__P

          In the 3rd debate Obama was being aggressive like Romney was in the 1st one. And it worked, since Obama won the last debate. However, Romney didn’t take the president’s arguments sitting down as much as Obama did at their first meeting, hence Obama’s win was not as great as Romney’s in the first.

          If Romney will somehow win the elections, although his chance of winning is currently at around 30%, due to the post initial debate momentum shift, one could blame Obama’s 90 minute performance that night for throwing away the entire 1.5 year reelection campaign. Let’s all hope, for the sake of our nation, that Romney will come up with another gaff. 

    • Ted Crawford

      Nice catch on the Intelligence information venter! It seems most Americans are unaware that Security Clearences come in different sizes, from simply ‘Secret’ to ‘Eyes only’, and Romney woun’t have ‘eyes only’ untill after the election! From then on he will be ‘read-in’ to the same intelligence that Obama is!

  • Joel Wischkaemper

    So much of what Obama has done effects those job numbers and negatively.  There are no miracles out there.. we are in a big time jam, but if he had said.. “This is the deal folks, and it is crummy America.” I would have been voting for him.  He didn’t and in fact…
    I have been fighting the battle against the illegal aliens since about 1989.  Some of those decisions back there were horrendous and Governor Wilson was damaged in that affair.  One of the best Governors to come down the pike in CA.  So along comes Obama and I am doing my thing with statistics and links, and one day while looking for information in the Immigration Yearbook, the information changed.  Then his information on the number of illegal aliens deported changed.  Altogether, perhaps ten or so data sets I knew well were changed and significantly.  Never more a trust for Obama.  Listen to him in the debate, and you would have needed to have a room full of researchers to find all the manipulations.

  • EddieD_Boston

    I saw something startling the other day. A twenty-something in a Prius with a Romney sticker. In MA no less.

  • Brushfour

    Am I the only one that thought Romney won 75 minutes of the 90 minute debate?  People don’t remember specifics of debates,..or speeaches for that matter; the human brain gets to distracted, to easily.  What they remember is THEME.  The lasting THEME of this debate is; one guy went small, and the other went Presidential.

  • Newmansgang

    I, too expected Romney to take the Benghazi issue head on. However, he tends to been very cautious, possibly a bit too much so. Still, I was satisfied that the governor made the case that Obama is our apologizer-in-chief, who has turned his back on our allies (Israel, Poland, and the Czech Republic, while stating that he would meet with Iran without preconditions. While the sanctions against Iran is a step in thge right direction, the mullahs there could care less about the welfare of their people much like North Korea. I predict that an Obama reelection leads to a nuclear Iran.

    • Mario__P

      “I predict that an Obama reelection leads to a nuclear Iran.”

      What a prediction.

      BTW, how has Obama turned his back on the Poles and the Czechs? Please don’t say it was that missile defense system. Pretty please?

      • Ted Crawford

        Of course we shouldn’t point out the most glaringly obvious reason! You, like Obama, assert that these actions are meaningless. The World, however views them in the light of reality, they do matter, very, very much !  To Friend and Foe, alike!

        • Mario__P

          I responded to Newmansgang asking how Obama “has turned his back on our allies” in Poland and the Czech Republic. If his argument was that those two nations wanted that system within their borders, but Obama shut the plan down, then that would be considered as “tuning his back on our allies”. But in reality, the majority, 57% of Poles and 67% of Czechs, in those two nations was against having the missile defense system in their nations, while only a small minority, 21% of Poles and 15% of Czechs, supported it. 

          Now, if you want to discuss the missile defense system on a broad scale, as in benefiting the Western world, then that is a different topic. But since Obama’s new plan for the defense system consists of missile installations on ships at sea, the goal will be achieved with a lot less opposition from our allies, with even Russia agreeing to the plan.

          You should realize, that the Central European nations are not only stuck geographically between the West and the East (Russia), they are connected to both parts of the world economically and diplomatically. The majority of the Central Europeans do not want to partake in the issues between Russia and the West, and they just want to be left alone. Just because a small group of corrupt Central European politicians will receive a nice bonus from the US to plant several missile silos on their turf doesn’t mean our president turned his back on our allies when he changed the plan.

  • EddieD_Boston

    I posts here 3 months ago that Obama is done and Romney will win handedly. I still think that’s the case.

    • EddieD_Boston

      Ooooops…I posted here…

  • Shane

    Obama showed who he really is; a far left radical who hates conservatives and capitalists. 

    • Phil Silverman

      really? then why did he continue the Bush II wars, his Patriot Act, the Solyndra project, the TARP, and the tax relief program? Oh, yeah, AHCA is socialistic. Based upon Romneycare.

      • Jeffreydan

          Well, let’s see: wars have no specific party (though dems are better known for them in recent decades), he expanded the PA such that he has more power over us now, Solyndra’s no conservative project, neither was TARP, and neither was Romneycare.

          As for the taxes, is it your position that he is pro-conservative because he doesn’t always believe taxes should be raised?    

        • Ted Crawford

          I agree with you in principle Jeffreydan, however, TARP was requested by and granted to Bush ’43’s administration. It was established as a ‘loan fund’ for struggling companies. Most of these loans have been paid back, with sufficient interest added that the program has netted a $23 Billion increase to the National Treasury! Hopefully even more of these loans will be paid back! Not a likely outcome should Obama be re-elected though!
          The Stimulus, on the other hand was more of, intended or otherwise, a ‘grant’ program that has resulted in about a $100  Billion lose to the Treasury, and that was all Obama’s administration!

        • Jeffreydan

            To Ted: no matter whose administration made it happen, TARP was not conservative.

  • Hauretired

    Less said is more?  Obama at debate 1,2, 3, and on the campaign  trail has a habit of saying nothing that will help  many Americans   pay  their bills .  Where is the plan to undo the last 4 years. 
     Could the plan be  Obamacare   ‘ 2’   for the economy  HA HA HA.  It could be done behind closed doors and Nancy Pelosie could  come out again and say  “you will know what is in the bill after it is passed.    However this bill will not be 2300+ pages  . One page and the 3 words   GREECE, SPAIN, EUROPE .  We were fooled once. Does Obama know Obamacare  for medical is going to kill more businesses and raise the middle classes bills even more.  Does he know many doctors will retire.NO 
    I learned from the debates our President doesn’t get it , and has no solid knowledge of how the business of America works.  The  economy  is entwined with the military .
    We learned how Obama is very ARROGANT ,  and very unpresidential and Washington has to be cleaned out.  Obama convinced me to vote  Romney/ Ryan.  
    Obama has made many statments that came out to be not true.  Knowledge can go   a long way.  He should have talked about HOPE AND CHANGE because this time we really need, 

  • Liamouighans

    Where was our Commander-in Chief as he loves to remind us when military retirees
    got a 66% increase in their copay for prescriptions purchased at civilian pharmaacies using medicare and Tricare benefits.  That happened this year. The
    administration constantly reminds us that military cuts were designed by the
    Joint Chiefs but omits that the Joint Chiefs are required to submit a budget that
    is within constraints imposed beforehand by the Office of Management and Budget,
    part of the Executive Office of the President.  When you’re standing in it up to hour
    hips, Commander in chief, don’t try to call it something else!

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      Aaaaah.. maybe he didn’t know.

  • bonaparte3

    Obama was condescending (Romney is the rich white guy he’s hated all his life) but Romney stammered, so the edge goes to Obama. Nevertheless, I doubt most Americans even watched the third debate. What concerns me is how accurate the polling is in Ohio. 

    • Buttonflybooks

      I didn’t. I was banned from the living room for throwing things at the TV. Hmmph.

  • Gerry

    Obama appeared insulting and condescending. Don’t think that helps him with moderates, especially women he’s trying to woo.

  • Jeffreydan

      Obama’s talking down to Governor Romney, esp. when they were talking about military funding, could’ve only pleased people like Soledad O’ Brien and Chris Matthews. I’d say undecided people will have seen BO as a smart-ass child.
      As for those decided on Romney, they already knew that BO isn’t in a position to talk down to anyone.

      This debate was a draw, and if the challenger had made it a point to talk about the Libya scandal, it would have been a decisive win for him (and America). 

  • Webmaster

    Right on! 

    As Breitbart said today in an e-mail headline, “Romney Wins, By a Bayonet.” 

    You’ve got to love it when this president lies so much he believes what he says.  But to liberals, don’t worry about “The One.”  It’s reported he will rake in $300,000 in annual retirement from serving “present” in the Illinois Senate and as POTUS, where the buck stopped everywhere but at his desk.  Think Harry Truman is turning over in his grave?

    • Joel Wischkaemper

      I WOV Breitbart.

  • John nazzaro

    The debate is not an end in itself. Its a means to an end. Who “won” in terms of fluid narrative/aggressive challenge on the facts is far less important than the answer to the question: did the event make you more or less likely to vote for a particular candidate ? In that context the media declaration that Obama won-a generic judgement I think-isn’t terribly relevant. That was the same generic judgement for Biden in the VP debate, which I am convinced for a variety of reasons severely damaged the Democratic ticket (i.e. Catholics presently have an unprecedented 58% majority for the GOP). Romney won aesthetically: a number of observers noted that he actually seemed to be filling the incumbent position and Obama the challenger-obviously a reverse of the reality. In short Romney has altered the optics in a way that would have been perceived as impossible 6 weeks ago.

  • dm

    Obama wanted to dominate and
    direct the discussion by baiting Romney.   He was ready with arguments for what he
    expected Romney to say.

    But, surprise, surprise, Romney can
    & did strategize!    Obama chose the losers strategy which is to
    argue and try to make himself appear bigger by making his opponent
    smaller.  Didn’t work!  Obama looked juvenile.

    The American people are smart
    enough to make up their own minds about whether Obama is lying or not. Arguing
    about it is not necessary.

    Romney isn’t going to sway
    anyone by attacking Obama. That would have only made Obama and the liberal
    press happy.

    Leaders don’t argue, they discuss,
    decide, plan and delegate.  Even though I
    don’t believe Obama is a leader, I do believe he has delegated the majority of
    his duties to other people.  There is no
    way he can do his job as a leader and make as many trips or speeches as he
    has.  There is no way a company could
    function if its CEO was absent 90% of the time. 
    Romney did the right thing by letting Obama hang himself.   

  • Brhurdle

    As much as I would have like to seen Gov Romney agressively attack President Obama, he had his eye on the prize and the strategy was to play to the undecided. If a voter is uncommitted at this point, they are aware of the flaws with the Obama Admnistration’s foreign policy. Rather than looking small with a relenless attack, Romney chose to present a conciliatory demeanor. Since voters don’t know if Romney’s proposals are any better (honestly, who does until they are tried), the candidate that looks less agressive and calm will win the confidence of the uncommitted. He made Obama look like Biden on a smaller scale.

  • Dave W

    I believe that Romney won the debate by once again appearing more Presidential, understanding the issues better than Obama and having clear steps that he would take (and the Obama administration should have taken) regarding issues such as Iran. Once again, Romney was clear and Obama was rambling.
    A critical point that Romney clearly expressed during the debate, is that a strong economy in the US is crutial to foreign policy including the US being treated as a world leader. Those who criticized Romney for continuing to emphasize the economy either don’t understand this point or  just want to support Obama rather than acknowledge that Romney understands such important concepts.
    Romney emphasized strengthening the economy in the debate because it is one of the most effective things that the US can do to support it’s foreign policy initiatives.  

  • Drew Page

    I agree that most people who are out of work care more about getting back to work at a decent paying job than they do about foreign affairs.   It will probably stay that way unless/until Al Qaeda strikes America again, possibly killing additional thousands.  

    If it turns out that Iran has made a nuclear weapon, delivered it into the hands of Hamas or Al Qaeda and it detonates in Isreal, L.A., Chicago or NYC perhaps then it will become a subject worthy of conversation.   Of course then it will to too late and instead of conversations, there will be interrogations.   “How could we have let this happen?”   “Where were our intelligence agencies?”    “Who is responsible for the lapse in security?”  Then will come the finger pointing and the formation of  “blue ribbon” committees with promises of investigations and holding people “accountable” and bringing the perpetrators to justice .  

    A weak American economy has a weakening effect on our national security.   We can’t remain in a position of having to tell our foreign embassies “Sorry, additional security isn’t in the budget.”   We must do what is necessary to restore our economy by reducing non-essential government spending, becoming energy independent, reforming our tax codes, reducing the number of government regulations sifling the creation and growth of businesses and jobs.  We must then reassume our role as a world leader.  In conjunction with our allies, we must find ways to help Middle Eastern and other poor countries develop their own economies and provide jobs for their own people.  If we can accomplish this, we will have diminished the frustration and anger of people who see no hope for a better life and turn to violence in retribution. 

    • Ted Crawford

      Interrogations, under the “acceptable methods” allowed by this Administration aren’t likely to yield much valuable information!
      Here  are some of the sanctioned technics taught today: “Begin with questions about the treatment recieved”, IE; “Sir, how did you sleep? Was the pillow soft enough? – “Sir how satisfied are you with the Laundry?, Were your pants pressed to suit you and was the amount of starch satisfactory”? – ” Sir, was your Steak properly cooked last night”?
      Then NAIL them with the tough ones! IE; “Sir do you know any Terrorists”? ” I didn’t think so” . “Sir, have you heard of any bomb plots”? “Again I didn’t think so”. “Please feel free to call, should anything not meet with your approval. Have a nice day”! 

      • Drew Page

        Ted  —  When I used the word ‘interrogations’, I wasn’t talking about interrogating terrorists.   I was talking about the questions some news people and the general public would be asking the government. 

        Any inquiries of possible suspects in such “a man-made disaster”  (remember, we can’t call it terrorism) would more than likely take effect in the manner you described.

  • rlpincus

    btw, the reason a chameleon changes its color so often is because its scared.

    • nickshaw

       “chameleon” isn’t exactly the word I’d use for Zero but, okay, I’ll go with it, Helen.

      • rlpincus

        Man, I just love that tact.  “Oh, I’m too stupid to follow what you meant. And then I’ll give you a name.”

        • nickshaw

           I thought you would, Helen.
          I learned from the master of misdirection himself, Zero.

  • Johnny Deadline

    For Romney the three debates have provided voters an unfiltered perspective of the Republican nominee sans the mainstream media bias and obfuscation.  For Obama the debates have not been “optimal” – for his hubris nor his re-election chances.

  • Jack Cox

    I’m no longer concerned about our country and it’s people after seeing/reading these comments. A lot of you on here have given me hope that our nation will survive with the statements made. Thank God you have understood how important this is to save a country from failure and losing our liberty’s any further. Our constitution will remain intact, as long as Obama goes, and Romney wins the election! 

  • rlpincus

    Romney appeared “calm, cool, and collected”?  Or “unsteady, unsure, and unknowing.”

    He contradicted his stated positions in any number of areas.  Where he was the neocon wet dream a few weeks ago, last night he became a doughy peacenik, similar to Bush in 2000 when he claimed he wasn’t into nation building but added the aside “unless it’s to remove a dictator.”  We all know how that turned out.

    Libya was Romney’s sword in debate 2.  Last night he barely mentioned it, probably because he was made the fool on its facts.

    All you need to know about Mitt as CiC: he wants more ships.  A total buffoon.

    • nickshaw

       Sure, Helen. That and binders and Big Bird.
      That’s all Mitt’s got.
      His platform is so darn flimsy that you know he couldn’t possibly have a chance of winning this election, right?
      So, you might as well just stay on the couch and do another bong ’cause Zero’s got it in the bag on election day.
      Yeah, that’s right. Why bother voting when your guys is so cool that even an idiot can see he’ll win, right?

    • CCNV

      Romney didn’t mention Libya because he knew that what was being revealed today would speak for itself:

      (Reuters) – “Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.”

      • rlpincus

         So you realize the intelligence flow was contradictory.  Good.  Let’s move on.

        And Mitt passed on a gotcha moment?  After his “for the record” response a week earlier?  Sure.

        • NS Sherlock

          There is no mistake about these facts. You obviously can’t handle the TRUTH.

        • nickshaw

          Funny, those three e-mails don’t look in the least contradictory to me, Helen.
          Well, you know, unless you mean they contradict the bull that Zero and his administration put out for the following 2 weeks.

          • grainbirds

            I went to that site, Nick. It’s true, you can tell that ripincus just repeats talking points. The thing about Ryan loving stimulus packages doesn’t make sense given the context. You certainly seem on a mission these days. You have become a warrior.

        • rlpincus

           Yeah, a group posting on its website is certainly the kind of hard info you announce to the world and act on immediately.

        • Jeffreydan

          “So you realize the intelligence flow was contradictory.  Good.  Let’s move on.”

            Nobody’s moving on until some questions get answered.
            I don’t blame you for wanting to get away from this topic; it seems every day or two something new comes to light about the administration’s post-Benghazi conduct. If there is one thing you cannot dispute, it’s that the American people haven’t been getting the truth from the gov’t.
            The WH had the facts inside a day that this was a planned attack by terrorists, and that point only got reinforced as time went on. Despite that, we heard regular disavowals of a video that had nothing whatsoever to do with it, for 2+ weeks.

            Your choice, pincus: either BO and the rest were lying to us constantly, or this was a case of serious incompetence.   

        • Drew Page

          Maybe your attitude what be somewhat different if it was your son, or your brother or your father that were among those four Americans who were killed in Benghazi.    Maybe, just maybe, you might want to know why the White House and/or the State Department actually reduced the security detail for our consulate when more security was requested by the ambassador.   Maybe you would want to know why our troops stationed less than an hour away by plane, weren’t deployed immediately upon the White House getting e-mails from those in the consulate under attack.   Reportedly, two of those Americans were killed seven houras after the e-mai;ls were sent.   An immediate deployment of our troops could have saved their lives.   But then again, maybe you wouldn’t care.  Maybe you would just prefer to complain about Bain Capital and Romney’s taxes.

        • rlpincus

           Maybe. Reportedly.  Could have.  Quite the persuasive thesis.

    • Jeffreydan

        Looking at the facts on the Libya attack, before, after, or overall, Governor Romney ain’t the fool, kid.  

  • nickshaw

    A further thought regarding Mitt’s stance and the Libyan debacle.
    Why should he bother bringing it up at all? Congress and the media are already showing what a poor job this administration was doing in that country and the rest of the muzzie world for that matter.
    Like a good lawyer at trial, one does not lead a hostile witness to the answer the witness wants to give. Mitt knew Zero would pontificate on that subject so why go there and degenerate into a “did too”, “did not” petty argument?
    Does anyone with a level of intelligence higher than a door knob think that having 4 brave men murdered and 4 or 5  embassies taken over with the Al Quaeda flying above them a foreign policy triumph?
    Do you think the LSM would hold a Repub president to the same standard, that, sure, we’ve lost an ambassador and the men tasked to protect him and 5 embassies were invaded but, he’s sure one hell of a foreign policy success?
    I think not!

  • Ken

    The biggest opportunity missed by Romney in last nights debate was how to tie in domestic oil production to foreign policy.  If we can get our daily production up 4-6 million bbls per day( which is easily obtainable in 3 to 5 years) we can not only dramatically improve our own economy but the rest of the world’s and severely diminish OPEC’s influence and by default strangle the middle easterns countries ability to fund terrorist groups and Iran’s nuclear programs. $35-$40 per bbl oil would be a HUGE change in the geo-political landscape.

  • Wheels55

    The middle east is like kicking an ant hill. You can destroy structures, but they just scatter around like bugs.

    • nickshaw

       Unfortunately, Wheels, that’s Zero’s take on Al Q.
      He thinks that, because you kill a few leaders you have them on the run.
      As 5 new flags flown over US embassies prove, nothing could be further from the truth. Al Q is bigger and in more countries than ever and just because it’s a group under another name doesn’t mean they don’t have the same goals!
      This crap of saying Al Q is dead and these new guys now playing the game are different is nothing but a joke.
      Further, I always thought the liberal meme was that muslims were mad at us because we bomb them indiscriminately which then leads to more terrorists.
      Well, isn’t this exactly what Zero is doing?
      Are they saying now that, because America has a muslim leader, that it’s okay to bomb other muslims indiscriminately?
      It’s a strategy that seems to work among muslims in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Mali, Somalia…need I go on?

      • Mario__P

        “Unfortunately, Wheels, that’s Zero’s take on Al Q. He thinks that, because you kill a few leaders you have them on the run.”

        We already know the reason for going into Iraq was bogus. Are you now saying that the reason for going into Afghanistan was bogus as well? Both the wars were a complete waste of lives and money? 

        • nickshaw

          Nice job of false conflation there, Helen.
          We all ¨know¨the reason for going into Iraq was bogus, do we?
          Iraq had chemical weapons and was quite willing to use them. Do you deny this? Could Saddam´s supply of yellow cake or any radioactive material been shipped to Syria along with it´s chemical weapons?
          Of course he could. He had lots of time to do it.
          Let´s try to keep in mind that invading Iraq was a bipartisan effort, could we?
          Unlike Zero´s ¨kinetic action¨in Libya that resulted in the murder of 4 brave men.
          Was Afghanistan a mistake?
          I would say the prosecution of the war in that country was a mistake, yes but, not the original intent. there´s a big difference.
          Still, nice try but, no cigar for your imitation of Zero´s debate style, Helen

        • Mario__P


          When did Saddam have chemical weapons for certain? We know he had chemical warheads in the 80’s, and early 90’s. Who do you work for? What info do you have that both the UN and the US could have used when searching for the chems?

          How do you know Obama’s action resulted in the death of four Americans in Libya?

        • Wheels55

          We knew Saddam had the components for chemical weapons in 2003. He was receiving high grade aluminum containers used only for chemical weapons and he had accumulated chemical components as well. He just did not assemble these weapons, but we knew he had the knowledge to do so. Those are some of the facts that lead us to attack him.

        • Mario__P


          The Bush2 administration claimed those intercepted aluminum tubes were going to be used for nuclear weapons. After the Iraqi invasion it was determined those  tubes were most likely going to be used for rockets. Hence, we attacked Iraq based on a false conclusion.

        • Wheels55

          Yup, the conclusions were wrong. Perhaps we never should have gone into Iraq. However, when we try to gather information on enemies of ours, that information does not flow easily nor is it usually complete. History is full of decisions like this based on bits of information. If Iraq had not had and used chemical weapons before, I think our decision based on this information would have been different.

      • Wheels55

        Clearly, the Chosen One thinks that the world loves him. Maybe because he received the Peace Prize before he really did anything. All the while, the world sees him as a joke…except for Castro, Chavez and Putin. They all like him. Need I go on?

  • nickshaw

    Zero has never stopped the “apology tour”, Bernie.
    What else do you call it when you blame free speech and the exercise of same  for the actions of 7th century savages?
    Now we’re apologizing to muslims because we have rights under the Constitution that Zero swore to uphold?
    Further, Zero’s sickening policy of praising the “accomplishments” of the muslim world, along with the “outreach” of agencies like NASA are enough to make one retch. Look at the result of this misplaced praise.
    I’ve said before, Zero’s foreign policy is similar to the white liberal saying he has many black friends.

  • Ken

    Foreign policy matters to quite a few in a broader sense in that does the current POTUS have a coherent strategy that will be help or hurt the US.  Obama’s policy is to put us on an equal footing with Belgium or Nepal.  His Middle Eastern Policy is to just be an observer and let the chips fall where they may because in his mind the US has always been a corrupting influence.
    The problem with that is readily apparent in Egypt and especially in Libya, we now have the Muslim Brotherhood firmly entrenched in both countries and for all intents and purposes in control of the entire North African coast and lets not forget that Al Qeada was born out of the Muslim brotherhood. 
    Because of his “No boots on the ground” policy in Libya and with no strategy to secure Libya’s vast caches of small to medium heavy weapons along with approximately 10,000 to 20,000 Russian made shoulder mounted “stinger” type missles we now have vast amount of extremely dangerous weapons in the hands of multiple Al Qeada cells and gangs of criminals and thugs because this Administration doesn’t seem to understand the concept ot the “Law of Unintended Consequences”.
    Obama’s Arab Spring is a full blown Arab Nuclear Winter, it will take future Administrations decades to repair what Obama has done by his failure to foresee his ” let the chips fall where they may” Middle Eastern foreign policy.

    • Kathie Ampela

      Exactly right, Ken.  What people do not understand is that wars in the future will not be country vs. country.. if we are hit with another 9/11 type of attack who will we retaliate against?  For you know EVERYONE will DEMAND answers on why this happened,what intelligence failures lead to this and on and on. But the writing is on the wall now and no one is looking. With Al Qaeda now spread all over North Africa, cells in Northern Iraq and the Taliban and AQ making a comeback in Afghanistan, who could be held responsible? No one is articulating the problem and I made the sorry mistake of thinking Mitt Romney would. “Lead from Behind” and zero intervention, no boots on the ground (well, except for the CIA which has now been thrown under the bus) have lead to a disaster no one is looking at.  Drone strikes will stop under a Romney administration because I can’t see the liberal media establishment “allowing” a conservative to get away with the consequences of the drone strikes…civilian casualities and destruction of infrastructure. I think we may end up where we started from if Romney wins, throwing them in Gitmo except the problem is everywhere not contained as it was under GWB. And we are arming the rebels in Syria…who are AQ? All in the name of the Lead from Behind and “no boots on the ground, I’m doing this better than Bush” policy.

  • Pat

    Romney played it very smart. He pulled the rug from out of their intended attacks. Most know about Lybia, so he wasn’t going to go there…it was moot at that point. We all know Romney’s desire to create jobs is high, so he didn’t have to go there.  He presented himself as a ‘president’ which was smart. He’s not the authoritarian teacher that Obama seems to like about himself.  Romney can make statements which are always in good context to make his points… as the apology tour was a biggie in the news. Stressing our strengths and weaknesses was important.  Obama made himself look petulant and sarcastic.  The cuts in military is another obvious piece info. most know…That can’t happen if we expect to be #1 in protection of our own country and others needing help.  That doesn’t make us war mongers. Many of Obama’s points were ‘repeats’ and boring. That’s it!

  • Eric90230

    Foreign policy … if there is another terrorist attack like the one on Sep. 11, 2001, that is going to hurt the economy. So, foreign policy is very important.

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    The wishful thinking of Carville reminds me of the wishful thinking of Dick Morris. It still appears to me that most undecideds are concerned about the economy. And who wants 4 more years of the spending disaster this President has given us.

  • Mark Brickey

    Why are ALL of you political hacks ignoring the deep WORLDVIEW chasm that separates these guys? Sure, Obuma says things that sound centrist  sound “nice”, “American”, but what has his actions been? What will they be?  He claps for Islam extremism, he wrings his hands when he finds out Bin Laden has been discovered, he hides on a TV show when an Ambassador & citizens are attacked & killed? Obama clearly is a “One World” let’s all get together & sing Kum By A. Lets’ have the smallest Navy in more than a century, the fewest manned planes, the smallest Army & Marines WITHOUT bayonets! Hell, he doesn’t even want real BULLETS!!! 

  • Kevin

    Romney was at a disadvantage going in. He used the best strategy to appear calm, cool and collected. There was only so much he could hope to get out of the debate. The President can simply say I’m President, so I know more about what’s going on in the halls of diplomacy than you do, and who can argue? But the biggest deficit Romney has going in is something he cannot spend ninety minutes trying to change and he knew it.  He thus used his time the best way he could…by not blowing it.  That deficit is the media coverage that hides Obama’s true foreign policy weaknesses and Romney could not spend time on things like Benghazi when most Americans are only just getting the information that us political junkies have been hanging on for weeks.  He would lose the average audience member trying to disassemble the Benghazi debacle so that he could set up a criticism that would have only marginal influence on that audience.  His demeanor countered Obama’s planned strategy to paint a picture of him as unstable, unworthy, not credible or whatever. Obama’s aggressive demeanor did not come across to me as presidential, but petty. I wanted more red meat, but I think Romney played it Pittsburgh Steelers style: get a lead, and take the air out of the football by running the boring plays up the middle.

    • Drew Page

      Romney either missed, or decided not to take, a number of opportunities to put the president back on his heels.  Mr. Obama kept saying  “In my budget …”.      If I were Romney I would have said  “Mr. President, what budget are you talking about?   It has been over 1,000 days since you took office and we still have no budget.   The two that you submitted to the Senate didn’t get a single vote of approval from Republicans or Democrats.    The Democrat controlled Senate has not submitted a budget of its own and has declared the budget proposals coming from the House to be “Dead On Arrival”.   Where have you shown leadership in getting a budget passed as required by the Constitution?”

  • rider237

    foreign police only really matters to those of us who are wonks.   we understand that the domestic and foreign are related. 
    so..if you know that foreign policy is not the general populations cup of tea, and you are going to try to conquer one who has a foreign policy record, how do you approach it?

    1. first do no harm…to yourself.  since no one really cares about the subject, all you have to do is not shoot yourself in the femoral artery and bleed out on the debate floor.

    2. knowing from past experience that the president lies if given half a chance, and the lies become the liberal sound bites for popular debate, do give him the chance.  don’t get into the weeds on things like Libya, where he will make points, and most people won’t understand the lies because they don’t even know where Libya is on a map….much less about our involvement there.

    3.  remember the target audience is the “undecided”.   undecided is a polite term for the unintelligent, uninformed, probably shouldn’t bother to vote, crowd.  lets face it, if you are undecided between these two, you have either been on another planet…..our should have been.

  • Wheels55

    If this debate was forgettable, then advantage Romney.

  • GlenFS

    The only loser here was the truth, which died at the hands of Obama.

  • Mario__P

    Debate #3 went to Obama 60/40. Had Romney brought up Benghazi in more detail, and had he not changed his position on Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria but stuck with his past and Ryan’s rhetoric, the debate would have gone to Obama 70/30. Instead, Romney wisely adjusted his foreign policies to match the president’s, and Obama could not rip him a new one. Too bad, because I was ready for that.

    • Wheels55

      I agree. I think Romney’s tone was a good one, but he should have done a little more on the Libya issue. Yet, Obama had to be aggressive and came across as a little desperate.

      • Mario__P

        Thank you Wheels. This is the second time we agreed on something, the first one being U2. grin. But I think Benghazi would have been a problem for Romney, and he wisely stayed away from it. 

        • Wheels55

          The President has many unanswered questions – from a guy that promised transparency. Yet, there was no real upside for Romney to hammer on issues that continue to need answers – he would just seem like an opportunistic nag. We’ll see if Romney playing it cool really helped. I think it may have.
          Achtung Baby

    • Jpz44

      Far more important than the attempt to blame the Middle East embassy attacks on a youtube video for up to two weeks after the Benghazi massacre, when the truth was known within 24 hours,  is the refusal to honor the pleas of more security by our ambassador to Lybia and his security detail (that was removed).    Obama had to know of the requests for additional security for which the ambassador was begging.   His failure to provide that additional security was either due to callous indifference or gross incompetence.    Getting Hillary to take the rap for this failure was pure cowardice on the president’s part.  

      • Mario__P

        All the questions about Benghazi have been answered, and Romney knew it. You don’t think Romney actually forgot to discuss the topic in detail?

        • Jeffreydan

            “All the questions about Benghazi have been answered…”

            All the questions YOU hope will be answered, perhaps. Others might be curious what BO has to say about the administration’s misinformation and “blame the video” campaign following the attack.    

  • kayakbob

    Dear Mr. Goldberg – your last paragraph sums up the debate and perhaps the last 3 weeks nicely. Nothing has happened since debate #1 to change the direction of this race, and last night was no different.

    Which brings us to the more fundamental question: are there still any “minds still in flux”? Do you know anybody that is still, truly undecided? I don’t. I know people that are holding their noses and voting Obama. I know people doing the same for Romney. But I don’t know anyone that has admitted they can still be swayed toward either candidate.

  • DrDave

    Romney played it well on two fronts: 1) by not talking about Lybia last night, it has only heightened the conversation today, and that’s bad for Obama, and 2) continuing to bring the subject back to the economy which is paramount on the minds of most Americans, confirmed Romney is the more qualified of the two candidates.

  • Distinguishwritersfoundation

    I called it a stalemate.

    • Drew Page

      If both candidates had equal credibility I would agree that the debate ended in a stalemate.    However, I find it difficult to believe anything Mr. Obama says because of his many broken promises and outright lies.  No matter what he says, I do not believe him.

      • Mario__P

        You support a candidate who changes his positions on a weekly basis, and you’re questioning the opponent’s credibility? Did you even watch last night’s debate? Did you notice any new foreign policies from Romney?

        • Jeffreydan

            Thank goodness you have a candidate who never changes his views, right? Like on same-sex marriage, the problem of taxes going up during a bad economy, whether or not lobbyists should have positions in the WH, closing Gitmo, etc. etc. etc.?

  • souvoter

    Everything hinges on getting the economy going again and Romney is clearly the man to get the job done. Americans cannot afford an Obama do-over failure!!!!

  • Farthgum

    Foreign policy does and finding a job both DO NOT MATTER AT ALL.
    The morons will vote for the Islamic-Dictator no matter what.
    Obama is a cult personality. Most voters will gladly let him finish off the country and will deserve what they get in spades. Remember,..”Obama is the smartest guy in the room”… and they actually believe that. They also believe HE is for them.
    The country will get roasted and no one will say a word about it.

  • Freedomrules3

    Actually foreign policy has plenty to do with getting a job. 25% of our total deficit is due to importing goods from China… That doesn’t take into effect the jobs that would be created and the tax revenue that would offset the deficit… The Wise Ones don’t get it that we are transferring our wealth as a nation every time we buy a piece of Communist Chinas Junk… So foreign policy has plenty to do with our economy…

  • Johncoynevegas

    After 4 years,
    0 steps Forward,
    2 steps Barackward.

  • Okieflyover

    If you judge this debate on current pop culture views of what Obama has done to attack, mock and slam others, Obama wins. If you are looking for a leader and the adult in the room Romney won.

  • Eric Witcher

    Mr. Goldberg, my bad, really liked your article.  I have to disagree with an observation regarding Mr. Romney in “low key” mode.  Think back if you will for a moment over the previous and current debates.  Mitt came into the first debate like a Lion.  He shut down $100M worth of advertising in less than 90 min.  Debate two, tempered and direct.  Different moderator, much more pronounced point spread.  Debate #3, calm and direct with a focus on the real problem, the economy.  I think he would be one heck of a chess challenge. Thanks for letting me rant.

  • Eric Witcher

    Our strength is first presenting freedom as a way of life to the world.  We can’t project that way of life when it’s in hock.  Foreign Policy is dictated by a checkbook way before the military gets involved.  Simply put, fix the economy, fix the world’s issues.  Sort of the build it and they will come.

  • brendan horn

    I think the story of the debate goes something like this. Bin Laden is dead, but the economy is in bad shape. No need to kill Bin Laden again, so we might as well vote for someone who can fix the economy. Obama has not shown he knows how to fix the economy. We gave him four years. He has not succeeded. Time to give someone else a shot, someone who understands economics. 

  • DWinMD

    Bernie, you were hoping for a decisive victory in the final debate. It wasn’t in the cards. I would call it a draw. Obama won the first half by a slight margin and Romney gained some momentum and took the second half. The two biggest lost opportunities for Romney; pressing the issue on  Benghazi, and more specifically the politically motivated, manufactured lie about the YouTube video, and not reminding the audience that Obama had actually called for Israel to return to the borders of 1967. Obama supporters (which include the MSM) will say that Obama won, conservatives will say that Romney held his own, and didn’t lose any ground.
    Best line of the debate: “attacking me is not an agenda.”

  • Judy

    Meant to also ad, I found it to be less of a debate and more of a morning with Mr. Rogers and his Encounter group–I’m okay, you’re okay, though admittedly at first I thought Romney scored some points..I think he was ill-advised by whomever from the audience or wherever or his own fears or advisors who mis-advisedly told him to lay low. Reminded me too much of McCain-Obama debates where I had Republicans I called re if they would vote, saying, why bother, they are both the same. Let’s not forget that Romney said he agreed with Obama’s foreign policy on several fronts re Afghanistan, etc. So many possibilities, yet so many missed opportunities!

  • Judy

    If foreign policy doesn’t matter, why even show up? Romney was given a gift with the horrific loss of American lives in Libya–on U.S. soil, of all things, and Romney never opened the gift which I believe was a very huge and disappointing mistake. He started out strong and then folded the game early. Not sure if a “friend” in the audience “cued” him to “tone it down” or what, but I truly believe it was a big mistake and made this conservative wonder whether it’s worth voting for.

    • Kathie Ampela

      You nailed it, Judy. Why bother having a foreign policy debate if it doesn’t matter? The Right are spinning it that way this morning…it’s damage control because Romney lost, he had a chance to close the deal and didn’t take it.  Very disappointing.  Fox News was setting up the debate all weekend as Romney’s chance to drop the hammer on Obama over Libya and suddenly there was a shift in narrative yesterday to..well, we think the economy might come up and softballing the Benghazi story.  I too believe either Romney decided or one of his close advisors told him to back off…huge, huge mistake.  I’m not sure how this debate will play out in the polls, but I personally was left not trusting either one of them with my security. Mitt Romney seems to be either ill-advised by out of touch elites or is holding himself back by his own fears.

      There is a time and place for politics such as working with Congress, Reagan worked with Tip O’Neill for example, Romney worked with a hostile legislature in MA and a time and place for telling it like it is. Romney blew it.

      • Pressonjd

        You’re so right Kathie! I actually de-friended Mike Huckabee when he pushed that Romney needed to be more soft. Huckabee even had a Democrat on and said we need to cross the aisle more and essentially I’m ok, you’re ok mentality that we had in debates with John McCain. I’m so disappointed.

  • Cindygc

    I think Romney played this evening perfectly! It reminds me of a chess match. Self control, confidence, NOT having to look over your shoulder or dodge because of past mistakes and a voice of reason. Romney didn’t pander or throw Obama cheap shots. He didn’t need to ‘try’ the President on Libya because his ‘chickens will come home to roost”. It was all substance from The Gov. It looked like a strategic Romney win! And I’m excited about it, because that is the kind of President I could be excited about! (If he’s real)
    I also think you are right Mr. Goldberg, most people’s minds are already made up. This just validated which horse we are going to bet on.

  • John Daly

    I was surprised that people like Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Charles Krauthammer all said that Romney came out ahead in that debate.

    I was ticked off during most of it because I thought there was an unwillingness by Romney to take Obama to task on almost anything. He also didn’t seem all that interested in defending the false accusations Obama was laying on him.

    Frankly, Obama won that debate. I think it was the only one of the three that he won, which was frustrating because all he had to do was get a little more aggressive to earn a tie.

    I’m hoping this doesn’t hurt him. I don’t think it will, but I’m annoyed that Romney gave the president an opening like this.

    • Kathie Ampela

      I’m in total agreement with you , John.  Mitt Romney let Libya slide for political reasons…just awful, in my opinion. Pass the Benghazi buck to John McCain and Lindsay Graham.  He washed his hands of it. Romney appeared neutered and timid not presidential, which is the prevailing spin among right wing pundits this morning.  Very, very disappointing.  The one thing I absolutely despise in politicians, on either side, is playing politics with national security and that’s exactly what Romney did.  How do I know that Mitt Romney won’t do the exact same thing as Obama if elected…carefully calculate and measure politics and manipulate information over national security…which is at the heart of the Benghazi scandal. One thing is for sure, however, a President Romney would never be allowed to play politics with national security…the media will rediscover it’s journalistic ethics.

  • molledar

    Much like the second debate, this one was pretty close. Romney did well to not fall into the Obama trap of arguing for the sake of arguing. He stood by his principles and certainly acted secure and confident. Obama, on the other hand, acted like he’s behind and had to prove himself. And he’s the incumbent. Most of the contentious points have already been fact-checked in Romney’s favor. Obama is desperate. People seem to initially react favorably to the more aggressive debator, but after the dust settles, most folks realize who looked the most solid.

    • CCNV

      obammy sat there with a clenched jaw throughout most of the debate. I’d say Romney hammered the muslim very well.

    • Okieflyover

      If there was no other data out there then maybe you say Obama won but there is too much information out there to think in anyway the state of the world is a win for Obama.

  • Mojonov12

    Bernie, thanks for fair analysis. But,  Romney was like Obama  in 1st debate?   Romney tonight wasn’t rude and unprepared as Obama was in 1st debate. I do think Romney could have been more forceful, and was perhaps ill-advised in that respect. Obama’s stares though were not appealing! 

  • Rhogue

    I think the bottom-line is that Americans’ are first concerned with paying our bills.  We understand this on a personal level and more important, I believe that a majority of Americans understand that this issue applies to our country as well.

    While winning debate points make us cheer and jeer, I believe it’s the overall impression of the man that we carry into the voting booth.

  • MiamiCane101

    Great analysis, as always BG. I wanted Romney to take it to him in round 3 though, hitting first and formost on a dead US Amb. Too safe for my taste but maybe less is more.

  • Truthseeker

    I am glad Romney side stepped the landmine of the Libya tragedy. Obama was baiting him so he could spin ANOTHER story of what happened.  Down deep not many people care about Libya … Obama wants the voters to take their eye off the economy and focus on ANYTHING but the economic mess and anti business policy of Obama. 

    • Smittenaz

      I agree – less said regarding Libya the better – that truth will come home to visit Obama and Romney knows it. Adding anything at this point just gives Obama fodder for his smoke and mirrors approach to campaigning.

      • Truthseeker

        If any conservative bases not voting for Romney because he didn’t attack Obama over Libya … I doubt they were going to vote for Romney in the first place. This election is going to be decided by middle of the ‘roaders’ undecided voters. The constant harping on Libya plays WELL to the conservative crowd … not so much to middle of the road voters. It is going to be about jobs the economy ..not about Israel …. not about Iran …. I talk to enough non conservatives daily to feel confident that 75% of them have no idea about Libya and not many more know about Iran ..many thain Iran and Iraq are the same country. More non conservatives know more about Keystone pipeline than the above. Gasoline prices, inflation and lack of jobs or out of work totally is above the ‘fold’ in their lives (to use a newspaper term) tonights debate subject  and everthing else is below the fold folks.

    • Paul Courtney

      You are right on the money, over the weekend, Ds rolled out a couple “intel” sources backing their fictitious early versions, if these were true, where were they 2-3 weeks ago?  This latest has Axelrod’s fingerprints all over it, setting up Romney.  If he attacked, O would have said this was the intel and accused Mitt of attacking our intel people.  Yes it would have been a vast lie, but that’s what Ds are doing.  Those of us who wanted Romney to attack on this are already voting for Mitt, he’s got to get squishy voters still in the middle.  It goes without saying (though Bernie has said it) that we don’t get these undecided voters, Mitt’s approach may be working.

  • Derek Ball

    NLCS game 7…MNF and the debate…..i am assuming most probably watched sports
    especially if the debate was about foreign policy and everyone is concerned with the economy!!

  • wabber

    I have to agree on most of your points, but Obama was so condescending and snarky that he looked less presidential than Romney. Best comment from Romney was, “We don’t dictate, we remove dictators.” Obama’s most snarky was, “…submarines, you know, boats that go under the water…”

    • CCNV

       My favorite line was when Schieffer said “Obama bin Laden”.

    • Okieflyover

      I can’t imagine anyone watching that debate and swaying toward Obama.

  • Denver778

    The undecided voters are morons at this point! Obama was petty and rude, angry and childish!  Romney will win with a landslide, as this will be the largest conservative voter turnout in our history!

  • Alicia

    Who am I to disagree with Bernie Goldberg, for gosh sakes? However, myriad arm-chair quarterbacks have had a great deal of advice to give Gov. Romney, and have second-guessed his moves throughout the campaign. Yet, look at who continues to gain speed. Maybe it’s time to trust this candidate to make his own decisions.

    • Paul Courtney

      Very good, Alicia.  Many of us who hoped for anyone but Romney last Jan. and who eventually got behind  him with little enthusiasm, may have to face this-he’s run a great campaign by simply refusing to take various baits from left and right.

  • Brad77t

    This debate was pretty meaningless. Nobody is going to be persuaded on foreign policy issues. This election still is all about the economy and why Romney will win

  • Mbromberg

    I don’t think Obama came off as presidential. I think he appeared alternatively arrogant and petulant. He also appeared to be in some kind of desperation trying to paint Romney as old and out of touch.
    Not at all how I would expect he President of the US To behave.

    • garyinco

      Agreed. The interruptions were very irritating, I don’t that is going to play well with women. 

    • terry


  • J

    Summary of this post:

    Romney got absolutely demolished. 

    When you’re saying it won’t matter, that means it will. Polling showing bigger Obama win than Romney’s 1st and we all know Americans love to frontrun. Expect this narrative to stick in next few days. 

    • wabber

      From the tone and assertions of your post, I bet you are a die-hard Obama supporter.

    • Delta Force

      Do you really believe the drivel you spouted or are you trying to make the best out of a bad situation?

    • CCNV

      This poor soul only watches MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN. Completely delusional.

      • Mario__P

        “This poor soul only watches MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN.”

        Only? But then you list most of the networks.

        This poor soul only watches FoxNews. (Now that’s how you use “only”.)

  • Truthseeker

    It’s the economy stupid ….

  • Delta Force

    I believe Romney won hands down.  Obama just acted like a spoiled petulant child.  All he could do is interrupt and lie.  There is a military axion; “Lead, Follow, or Get the HELL Out of the Way!”  I is quite obvious the soon to be unemployed person in the White House has never read or heard this statement.  He doesn’t have a clue on how to be a CIC.  There isn’t much call for community organizers in the military.