Andrew Sullivan: "...Obama is wiping the floor with him on substance, and Romney has basically fled neoconservatism as quickly as he would a liquor store. Romney is now endorsing Obama's withdrawal from Afghanistan."
Here's what President Obama did to Mr. Romney in the last debate on foreign policy, (Mr. Romney's in the blue shorts; President Obama's in the gold):
"Obama told Mitt Romney that he was out of touch on his criticism of the current military structure, at the foreign policy debate. "You mention the Navy, and how we have fewer ships than 1916. We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed."
BUDDA-BING!
16 comments:
This is partisan BS by a progressive partisan. The PC pound must be very nervous.
LMFAO!!!!!
Romney wimped out. Rather than challenging Obama on foreign policy, he just agreed with him. He didn't have the guts to disagree with him or to,stand up to him when he thought Obama's policies were wrong. Wow! Some great negotiator he is going to be when he is facing a real enemy across the table.
Romney's stand on the issues is about as firm as a wet noodle. Just what we need to instill confidence in our friends and fear in our enemies. NOT!
what a great debate this was...
"Anonymous said...
This is partisan BS by a progressive partisan. The PC pound must be very nervous.
October 22, 2012 10:45 PM"
ROFLMAO! Great parody of a p.o.'d Romney supporter. Thanks Anon for the chuckle.
The New York Times delivers a blistering rebuke of Romney's performance and policy:
Mitt Romney has nothing really coherent or substantive to say about domestic policy, but at least he can sound energetic and confident about it. On foreign policy, the subject of Monday night’s final presidential debate, he had little coherent to say and often sounded completely lost. That’s because he has no original ideas of substance on most world issues, including Syria, Iran and Afghanistan.
During the debate, on issue after issue, Mr. Romney sounded as if he had read the boldfaced headings in a briefing book — or a freshman global history textbook — and had not gone much further than that. Twice during the first half-hour, he mentioned that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were active in northern Mali. Was that in the morning’s briefing book?
Bloomberg's editors:
Someone apparently forgot to tell Mitt Romney about last night’s foreign-policy debate. He didn’t come to debate, and he wasn’t eager to talk about foreign policy. [...] To say that Obama got the better of Romney on substance, and he did, is almost beside the point. Obama repeatedly called for more specifics and exposed Romney’s inexperience; he was especially good on Romney’s empty talking points on Pentagon spending. The question is which Romney Obama got the better of.
OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
Cut to Romney’s response:
ROMNEY: Well, of course I don’t concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that I’ve said. They don’t happen to be accurate.
MITT ROMNEY on CNN March 2012:
In a March 26 interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, he said the president seemed to be willing to negotiate with Russians on matters he was hiding from the American people.
Said Romney: "This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."
Romney has no core. He doesn't even agree with himself on statements he made only a few months ago.
Said Obam... To the Russian HOS, 'after the election I'll be able to be more flexible.' Hm.
Wondering still . Implication is clear.
But, Hope and Change springs eternal, if only America believes in the new Messiah.
Posts such as this really puts progressive nervous condition on display.
I'm not sure what I said before, but what ever it was, I agree with it.
Hmmmm, who said that?
And who uses concur in a sentence?
JC: Romney wimped out. Rather than challenging Obama on foreign policy, he just agreed with him.
Romney was doing the same thing he did in the first debate -- donning his "moderate Mitt" persona in hopes of winning over centrists unfamiliar with his actual record. The difference is, this time Obama called him on it.
What startled me was the remark that "Syria is Iran's route to the sea". Does he think Iran is land-locked? The Persian Gulf is called that for a reason. Can he really be that ignorant?
@Anon @8:42
If these posts put "progressive nervous condition on display," why are you here spinning like a supernova?
LOL!
Mr. Romney was awful last night. And I'm not a bit nervous in saying so.
Question Shaw, Has Obama ever be awful? Specifically in your view. If so when, and how so.
Anon, President Obama did not do well in his first debate. Everyone agrees on that. But in the last two, he's more than made up for it.
Happy?
Feels good to watch all these lying Republiscums squirm. They not only lost the debate, but the election.
Anon, why do you pose questions as if people on this site have not been critical of President Obama?
Unlike other sites that do not allow criticisms of Mitt Romney, and have even said their goal is to help him gain the presidency, Shaw, while a partisan, has always allowed reasoned critiques of our president.
Go back and read the posts and comments and you will see many times where liberals have not fully supported Obama.
Unlike the GOP partisans, we've actually been critical of our president while he was in office. The GOP bloggers 100% fully supported Bush and his ideas that he made no mistakes and no regrets while he was in office.
And then the revisionist history began.
No Republicans of note, or bloggers criticized him for his actions until he was long out of office.
Mitt Romney's third-debate performance was like a Potemkin village where several of the false-front "buildings" had revealingly tipped over.
Post a Comment