This is driving me nuts!

I want to follow up to my response below... I've been walking around all day and no matter what I do or how I attempt to distract myself I keep having the arguments I would have prosecuted were it me debating Obama last night instead of Romney. Again, I get the idea that there are only a select amount of states in play and only select demographics within those states, so I understand last night's strategy to capture the three undecided single moms in Ohio by communicating, "I'm nice. I'm not Bush. No more wars, I promise." However, I tend to concur with Pat Cadell (a political analyst on Fox News whom has the unique distinction of being both an out spoken critic of Obama and the 1980 campaign manager of Jimmy Carter), that there were ways for Romney to avoid being painted as a war mongering Bush 2.0 without curling up into the fetal position. He played it safe. Fine. But playing it safe doesn't strike me as particularly inspired leadership when Americans are dying in foreign wars.

So if I am to get a single thing done in the next 72 hours I must purge myself of these arguments here. I give you an abrogated foreign policy debate between F.Ryan, son of Terrance, warden of the South and Barack Obama, second of his name and Lord of the East . . . (I've been watching Game of Thrones, forgive me):

Mr. President, I don't doubt your sincerity in wanting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt your ability. You see sir, as history has shown us wars are either won or lost, not arbitrarily ended so they may serve as campaign slogans. Many people may not be aware that in Afghanistan, our longest war, 70% of US casualties have occurred within the last four years. That was your watch. And that 2/3rds of the cost of the war has been spent in the last four years. It would appear that much like the stimulus spending the American people are not getting a good return on the blood and treasure they entrusted you with. Last month alone a half dozen Afghan soldiers, trained, housed and fed by our military so that they may stand up when we stand down have turned on our men, killing them in cold blood. Across North Africa and the Middle East we see embassies under protest, under attack and under evacuation. You stand up in the UN and declare we will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, yet the biggest obstacle to tighter sanctions, Vladimir Putin, is sent a secret message via his proxy so that he'll know things will get easier after your reelection... easier for him. As a candidate for president you declared it folly not to negotiate with the worst actors around the world. You described Iran, Cuba and North Korea as, "tiny countries that don't pose a threat to us." Mr. President, as it is today, in 1941 Japan was a tiny country in comparison to the United States. As any junior analyst at the CIA can tell you, the geographical size and population of a nation do not dictate their threat level. Their determination does. And as we sit, four years later, Iran seems as determined as ever to acquire nuclear weapons. They pursue their goals, threaten our closest ally with a second holocaust, and we do nothing. Your strategy has failed. They are undeterred. And why shouldn't they be? One of your first acts as President was to tell them and the world that essentially America has been a problem. You stood on foreign soil and proclaimed that we, the greatest nation ever to grace God's green earth, have "failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world" and added "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Mr. President you said these words in France. Let me ask you, were we dismissive at Normandy? Were we derisive at the liberation of Paris? Imagine the young Lieutenant coming in from patrol in Mosul where he spilled and spent blood that day only to come into his command post and hear his Commander-in-Chief call the country he spent all day defending, arrogant. I think your administration has failed to appreciate America's leading role in the world, and you have personally condemned it. In the Port of Spain you proclaimed, " [A]t times we sought to dictate our terms.” Your view on American history seems to have a theme - we are the problem. Mr. President, America is not the problem. America is the solution. I started this by stating that I don't doubt your sincerity in Afghanistan and Iraq, just your ability. Unfortunately the same can not be said of Libya. There has been much discussion on why a video and angry mobs were said to be at fault when it was clear there were neither. Discussions on why your Secretaries of Press, the UN, and State repeatedly and emphatically claimed that when our Embassy fell and four Americans died that a spontaneous protest was to blame. In your speech to the UN, nine days after the assault, you referenced this video and those protests no less than six times. Mr. President, it never happened. There were no protests. It was not due to a video. It was planned. It was premeditated. It was a terror attack. Not a "man caused disaster" as your National Intelligence Director insists on calling such attacks, not an "over seas contingency" as your Press Secretary refers to wars. It was an attack by terrorists. And the fog, the muddled haze that followed, which continues to this day, has been nothing short of dishonest. If the American people can not expect a straight answer on matters of life and death then how can they expect a straight answer on medicaid? On unemployment? On gas prices? So the question quickly becomes, why? Why do we see a foreign policy agenda unraveling before our eyes? I submit it is you. With all due respect sir you went into the office of President as a national security novice, and four years later the rest of us are paying the price. America trusted you and you have been irresponsible with that trust. And just for the record, the Navy classifies air craft carriers among their ships. Perhaps if you spent more time among world and military leaders and less time with David Letterman and raising crystal champagne glasses with vulgar rappers, you would know that. I think America has had enough of a foreign policy born of on the job training. The job is too important and your training is going too slow. You've had your four years to apologize for us. We're ready to go back to leading now.

Lets not go too far here...

On me or Romney.

Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.

On me... I didn't endorse Romney's strategy of last night. I was clear about that. I don't like this stuff. I was clear about that. Reread my post, I wasn't happy. I simply acknowledged that this was a purposeful strategy that may work to capture the few mushy middle undecided voters still left. That's all - it was on purpose and may work. But I don't like the strategy of smothering with hugs just so the middle doesn't think you're "mean", especially when your opposition was caught dead to rights lying about the assassination of an ambassador. I prefer drawing clear and definite contrasts the way I feel Romney did on economic policy and the way Reagan did on every policy. That, I feel, is the more effective tact, but Romney's not paying me $900 an hour to advise him... maybe he should.

Now, on Romney... overall I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. I don't think that our "only hope" is the electorate realizing Obama is now making excuses for, rather than defending, his record. I think Romney has prosecuted the economic issue well and that this election will turn on whom the nation feels will be better on the economy (from gas prices to jobs).

In fact, here's my prediction - Romney wins in 2012 by more than Obama won by in 2008, in spite of giving an absolutely corrupt, historical-revisionist, self-loathing American, radical apologist a pass on foreign policy.

I didn't expect that...

I didn't expect F. Ryan to say what he did in his last post... not in a million years.

Dude... what happened to running on principles?  Holding Obama's feet to the fire?  You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base.  Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.

I thought he (Romney) was lack-luster at best.  He danced to Obama's beat, and that cost him.  I agree with you that it wouldn't have served to have Romney seem to do nothing but "attack" and "argue"... but he is spending FAR too much time and effort trying to say "Obama and I want the same thing" and that the voting public should pick Romney's means over Obama's, but still shoot for the same end.  That is what I am hearing, and I don't like it.

I'll say this, too:  Obama is beginning to look like he is making excuses for his policies and actions, rather than defending them.  I can't say that any one point stands out, but it is a general impression that I HOPE like hell I'm not simply imagining but that others can also see.

It might be our only hope.

Playing it safe?

Not one word on the Libya cover-up from Romney. Not one.

He went after Obama on Israel, somewhat. He went after the apology tour, somewhat. He went after the administrations inability to identify democrats (small "d") within the Arab Spring to back with weapons and rhetoric, somewhat. It seemed that Romney was playing it safe, protecting a lead. He decided to handle the fiery, borderline insulting (strike that, there was nothing borderline about "We have these things called air craft carriers, planes land on them, and ships that go under water, they're called submarines.") and the other cutting jabs from Obama by smothering them in a peace-loving hug. Now look, Romney didn't "forget" about Libya. And he had ample opportunity to go after Barry with a sledge hammer (the POTUS even tried to draw him out on it saying, "let's return to Libya for a moment"), but Mitt was nothing doing. It was clear (and the Romney camp not only admitted this after the debate, but noted this was a strategy specifically insisted on by Mitt) that Romney was not going to go on attack over foreign policy in the way he went on attack over economic policy. He would instead find ground (with some notable exceptions) where they agreed on foreign policy, and use the balance of his time to pivot and hammer home the economic argument. Essentially he's decided "It's the economy stupid", to quote a fellow Southerner and Saints fan.

Look, we're not GOP sycophants here. If you're asking me for what I like to see in a debate, it's a brawl. It's precision cuts across the artery of the inner thigh, it's take him apart at the joints, it's what the hell do you mean Israel should retreat to the 1967 borders and are you going to let your madam SoS take the rap on Benghazi sir? It's shouting that you can find out all you need to know about the president's energy policy every time you pull up to the gas station, it's going for the soft underbelly all the time, every time, and Romney just didn't deliver for me ... BUT ... Romney's not looking to convince me. And that's the one other thing, besides pivoting to the economy, that I thought he was trying to do tonight - convince undecided voters that he's not George W. Bush. Due to Dubya's inability or flat unwillingness to defend himself during his two-terms, every GOP nominee for the rest of our lives will be forced to say "See, I'm not a war monger, I like peace." And that was Mitt's only other goal, "I'm tired of war too, I'm not Bush." It was either clever, or too clever by half, but I am willing to admit that the verbal blood on the sand I hope and cheer for may not be the winning strategy to capture those last few folks in the moderate, mushy middle. Time will tell.

One other observation. The roles were interestingly reversed in a traditional/historic perspective. Mitt seemed to be the seasoned incumbent, confident in his lead, unwilling to rock the boat, opting to play defense rather than keep a jab in his opponents face. While the sitting POTUS played the role of the scrappy contender, taking risks, coming off as almost belligerent. We at the Bund of course prefer a belligerent confrontation whenever it can be found ... but like I said, he's got us. On debate points, Obama wins. However, the only point tally Romney's debate strategy was concerned with is the electoral college. And I pray, literally, that this strategy worked.

I was watching Romney...

and I didn't say Obama won, only that Romney missed chances.

I did call Romney's victory in the first debate, by the way... and I'll call him the winner in this, too.  I had simply hoped for a bigger win, a more decisive victory.

My dislike of Obama is growing on a daily basis.  I've never been one of those that are convinced he is determined to "re-write" the American Constitution to suit his socialist dreams, but I can't deny his socialist attitude.  Add to that his pandering, meaningless platitudes and empty promises to the "American people"... and I'm almost to a point where his voice makes me ill.

Nothing came clearer to me in these last three debates than this fact:  Romney/Ryan, while they use "I" and "we" in their rhetoric, don't MEAN "I" or "we".  They are not promising that GOVERNMENT can fix any problems... they are promising that government is the PROBLEM.  Obama is not only saying government is the solution, he is promising that HE is the solution.  He wants the GOP to "get out of my way" so he can fix things... and that nauseates me.  His utter disdain for anyone that has had, earned or come into any kind of material or fiscal wealth shows me that he sees two Americas... and he longs to be able to take from both equally and without restraint.  Take the freedoms and responsibilities from the "have nots" and take the wealth and wages from the "haves" to pay for it all.  Both Americas are equally reduced, both are marginalized in the political arena, and the Democrats are the better for it.

However, as Ryan said... I read this message clearly for what it is.  The rest of America probably doesn't.  That is sad in the extreme.

What debate were YOU watching?

Last night was another stellar performance by Mitt Romney. In fact, I'd argue that last night was perhaps the single best indictment of the Obama economic record ever publicly made by a candidate for office. And just as an aside, maybe I'm wrong but I'm getting the feeling you found Romney's first debate performance less than impressive. Buddy, even that bastion of right-wing propaganda CNN had that debate polling at 72% to 27%, Romney. The first debate performance single handily changed the momentum of the race. It's why Chris Matthews had a melt down, about which you posted. Look at these post-first debate swing in numbers from the Pew Research Center:

This was a direct result of the first debate. I mean what more do you want man?

To last night... yes he did allow the Benghazi issue to get away from him, but (unlike I thought) it is the third/next debate that is solely focused on foreign policy and Romney will have more than adequate opportunity to expose the inconsistency in that scandal. And in fact the missed opportunity may have caused the chance for a greater opportunity in Monday's foreign policy debate because Romney got the POTUS "on the record" (Romney's actual words) claiming he was calling the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack starting on 9/12. On Monday night he can now compare that claim to the 9 days that followed in which the entire administration, including Obama's speech at the UN (where he mentioned the video 6 times), emphatically reiterated that the attack was a result of spontaneous protests. Now we can get into whether Obama was directly referring to Benghazi on 9/12 when he used the phrase "terrorist attacks" or not, but that argument, essentially over what the definition of "is, is", is not the point. The point is the POTUS is now claiming that from day 1 he thought it was a terrorist attack. That's incredible! It means he purposely misled the world for the 8 days that followed. And by the way, it's now clear that State Department officials watched the attacks unfold in real time. The woman at State whom claims this is true, her name has been made public. We have someone specific to point to and say "she knew." So what do Biden and the rest mean then when they say "we were told it was due to protests"? By whom? When? How come State has a tape of it, yet the POTUS was informed of a fictional protest? Trust me, this will prove fertile ground come Monday. Obama ducked it Tuesday, thanks largely due to Candy Crowely, but he dug himself into a deeper hole for Monday.

But here's the more important point in this presidential race as of 10/17/12: Romney has  owned the room on the economic issue since that first debate, and did so again last night. And it's because, in my opinion, he employed a simple, potent strategy for defeating the flowery "hope and change" rhetoric of 08'- compare it to the now established record. When that black gentleman said to the the president (via his question) "I'm less than enthusiastic this time around", the answer Romney gave during his 2 minute follow up starting with, "I think you know we can do better", was a specific, uninterrupted prosecutorial style verbal indictment of the Obama failures (including this fallacy of creating  5 million jobs) that has never been accomplished by any sitting member of the GOP in four years. And Romney repeatedly returned to this list of failures, including the fact that the president had four years, two including control of both houses of congress, to fulfill his promise that he'd pass "sweeping immigration reform in my first year" yet failed to even propose legislation. Romney succinctly compared the cost of gasoline today at nearly $4, versus that of January of 2009 when the national average was $1.86 a gallon. Obama's only retort to gas prices was, "The reason prices were so low then was because the economy was on the edge of  collapse." What does that even mean, that now that we're away from the edge they're back to normal at $3.86 a gallon? WTF? That was perhaps the most pathetically weak answer of the night, and it should leave every undecided voter scratching their heads and wondering if this guy grasps even the most basic of economic issues. For example, most registered voters today remember that gas was cheap under the Clinton era dot.com boom ($0.99/gallon). Romney won that exchange in a walk. Romney also crushed the POTUS on the oil and coal issue, in particular the topic of oil leases on federal land. That exchange was borderline emasculating for the CIC. He articulated at every opportunity that the president promised health care costs would go down two-thousand five hundred dollars, and yet they went up by two-thousand five-hundred dollars on average per family; that 32 million Americans were on food stamps in January 09', now 47 million fill those roles; that 1 in 6 Americans are now living in poverty; that the president promised, at this point, that we'd be at 5.2% unemployment and the difference between that number and where we are constitutes 9 million Americans out of work (which is a more effective way of comparing 5.2% and 7.8%); and that the president promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and instead has doubled it. And in a statistic I thought particularly provocative, that even wonks like us haven't heard, there are 3.1 million more women in poverty now than when the president took over. These are simple, easy to grasp failures that people see and feel in their everyday lives and Romney relentlessly exposed them last night. Obama routinely had to look to Candy Crowely for a bailout of the conversation. It was a prosecutor with a hostile witness on the stand and quite frankly I feel it was a devastating performance by Mitt. I'm being serious when I ask if you watched the entire debate, uninterrupted? If not, watch it again.

Look - you must bare in mind two very crucial things in regard to last night's debate. 1) everyone (especially the Left) agreed that Obama's first debate performance was a disaster. In fact when we look back on it, perhaps historically so. Romney emerged with an 8 point swing nationally and in 7 of 11 battleground states as a result of that first debate (you can read its devastating impact on the polls from Leftist columnist Andrew Sullivan here.). My point being is all that Obama had to do to be successful in the second debate was show up because he could have hardly done worse than his first performance. 2) Most analysts/polls are claiming that overall the second debate was a draw or a slight edge to Obama (again, see point #1). It was not an equivalent knock out as Romney had in the first. However, when asked whom won the economic portion of last night's debate CBS has it Romney 55%, Obama 37%. CNN has it at 65% Romney to 33% Obama. And this is a critical stat Titus - a sitting president can not lose the economic argument and win the election. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding: on Monday morning the grand puba of presidential polling, USA Today/Gallup opened up Romney at a 50% to 46% lead over the president. As the challenger, reaching that 50% mark was a crucial a milestone. This morning USA Today/Gallup has it 51% to 45%, Romney. The task of last night's debate for Obama was to stave off Romney's momentum. Obama failed.

Do me a favor. In fact, do yourself a favor - you, Jambo, me, people like us, we have a litany of visceral, factual debates with team Obama on a regular basis. In our heads, in the car listening to the radio, watching television. So don't fall into this trap where you compare Romney's arguments to the ones you would, and have, made. He'll never measure up to that standard, believe me. But that's ok. With 20 days left to the election he's not going after the Titus/Jambo/Ryan vote. He's got us. His job at this late date is to move anyone that is movable from 08', into his camp. And winning the economic issue at a 2:1 ratio is exactly how he's going to accomplish that goal. So pack your pipe, have a swig of Jameson and relax, he's gonna bring this thing home buddy. The polls are bearing that out.

Who wants Candy?

Candy Crowley... utterly useless as a moderator.  Wow.

Well, I'd say that Obama has kept one promise in his first term... he certainly threw the "polite" factor out the window, didn't he?  He was angry, confrontational and very defensive.  For me, that does not read as "confident", which is a word used frequently in describing Obama's performance in the media this morning.

Romney was less than stellar, again.  In fact, I'd grade his performance last night as "poor".  Especially on such basic topics as immigration, taxes and gun control.  He should have owned those topics, but muddled through with almost no point made.

How many times did Obama say "We need to create jobs in this country."?  Why wasn't it brought to his attention that he has had four years to create jobs, and routinely says he created 5 million of them?  Why wasn't it shown that, even if he did create 5 million jobs, 9 million were lost in the four years he's already been President?  There has been NO gain in unemployment since 2008... none.  Why not?

When asked about gun control, and the danger of certain weapons being in the hands of people who shouldn't have them (i.e. the Aurora shooter), when was it going to be explained that the weapons owned and used by criminals are ALREADY ILLEGAL?  The tragedy that was the shooting in that Aurora, CO theater isn't the result of what weapons were employed to execute those people... it was the result of an unbalanced mind committing a horrific crime.  Using the Aurora tragedy as an example of why a new weapons ban is needed is tantamount to saying that all cars should be outlawed because someone kills another person while drunk driving.  We can't blame gun violence in this country on a breakdown of the nuclear family, for Pete's sake... we need to see it for what it is:  a biased view of a symptomatic aspect of ANY multi-cultural, diverse population wherein 380 million people coexist.  Liberal media pundits look at Aurora as THE symptom, but in reality the problem lies in the FACT that every 45 seconds in this country, someone is held at gun-point by an assailant in a crime.  These guns are procured illegally, are possessed illegally, and are utilized in an illegal activity by CRIMINALS.  Denying law-abiding citizens their rights does NOTHING to stop the problem.

Romney also dropped the ball on the Benghazi question.  Yes, the President said "terrorist attacks" in the Rose Garden... but attributed the "attacks" to an anti-Islamic video, just as Romney was alluding to.  Why would he allow himself to get tripped up like that?  Where was his head?

A very poor performance indeed.