Type to search

Romney Brings His Etch-A-Sketch To Boca

Memo Pad

Romney Brings His Etch-A-Sketch To Boca


Shortly before Mitt Romney’s much-hyped (and ultimately underwhelming) foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute, The New York Times reported that even Romney’s own advisors had no idea what the Republican nominee’s foreign policy would look like should he become Commander-in-Chief. His performance at the third and final presidential debate on Monday night at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, must have confirmed their doubts.

On issue after issue, Romney disavowed the same positions that he and his neoconservative advisors have embraced throughout the campaign. While he successfully distanced himself from the deeply unpopular foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, he ultimately left voters with little notion of what he actually believes when it comes to international affairs.

Unlike the first two debates, Romney spent almost the entire night in Boca Raton agreeing with Obama. From the very first question — on Libya, the topic that Romney clumsily used in attempting to attack the president during the last debate — it was clear that he would not be playing offense. Although Romney repeatedly criticized the president’s supposed lack of leadership, he essentially endorsed the Obama administration’s policies on issue after issue. On Syria, Romney said that he wanted to use diplomacy to remove Bashar al-Assad without American military intervention, which is exactly what the Obama administration is doing. On Iran, Romney stressed that military action should be a last resort to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear weapon, only to be used if sanctions and diplomatic pressure fail. On Afghanistan, Romney endorsed the same 2014 exit date that President Obama has promised.

In some instances Romney was even more explicit. Asked about President Obama’s handling of the Egyptian revolution, he acknowleged that “I supported his action there” — and on drone strikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban, Romney acknowledged that “the president was right to up the usage of that technology.”

Implicit in Romney’s support for many Obama administration policies was his rejection of the Bush administration’s almost universally discredited handling of foreign affairs. This may be a tough sell, however, given that 17 of the Republican’s 24 special advisors on foreign policy served in the Bush administration. Indeed, Romney’s declaration that “we don’t want another Iraq” probably came as a surprise to his most visible foreign policy advisor, Dan Senor, who served as chief spokesperson for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, and may be the only remaining American who still considers that war a success. Similarly, Romney’s call to indict Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under the Genocide Convention must have startled his potential Secretary of State John Bolton, who may be the most vocal living critic of the International Criminal Court (even louder than the outlaws prosecuted there).

Romney’s sudden embrace of the Obama administration’s foreign policy might have been more persuasive had he not been sharing the stage with Barack Obama himself. The president repeatedly called Romney out for trying to Etch-a-Sketch away his troublesome positions. At one point he chided Romney forcefully, saying “one thing that I’ve learned as Commander-in-Chief” is that “you’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean.”

Obama later observed sharply, “Governor, the problem is, that on a whole range of issues, whether it’s the Middle East, whether it’s Afghanistan, whether it’s Iraq, whether it’s now Iran, you’ve been all over the map.”  The president went on to point out that — despite Romney’s newfound support for Obama’s policies — he has in the past endorsed a pre-emptive strike against Iran, called the ouster of Muammar Gadhafi “mission creep,” opposed both the end of the war in Iraq and the introduction of a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan, and claimed that “we shouldn’t move heaven and Earth” to kill Osama bin Laden.

Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1


  1. old_blu October 23, 2012

    Romney leans anymore toward the President’s policies, good thing there are no more debates Romney is likely to show up as African American. FLIP FLOP.

    Obama did great calling him out on his lies and flip flopping again. It’s a good day.

    Obama/Biden 2012

    1. neece00 October 23, 2012

      It was a great debate and we can only hope that this makes a difference in the minds of the undecided.

    2. Melvin Chatman October 23, 2012

      You’re very correct!
      But Mittens isn’t DUMB – he’s a “Shape Shifter”
      he’s after those Voters who just HATE Obama and he presented a way to keep most of the President’s Plans, take the Credit, and change the “COLOR” of the Man in the White House – threw the Flea Party under the “Parked Bus” until after the Elections are over!
      He owes a “Ton of Favors” to a few Billionaires who demand a “Return” on their Investments!
      “IF” he steals a win, at least Visitors to D.C. can see a different White House everyday because “Shape Shifting” can effect a Building too!!
      Since he was a Pastor in the Morman Church, President of the U.S. is his next “Entitlement” – just sayin!!

      1. old_blu October 23, 2012

        I read an article the other day in tha SLC Tribute where they called him a “shape shifter” I like the nice way they, and you say horrible liar. LOL

        1. Fern Woodfork October 23, 2012

          That’s What I Said Also, Romney Has Shape Shifted And Morphed All Over The Place Lying Rat Bastard!!! Have You Notice Obama Has Been Nailing Romney On The Lies, Shape Shifting And Morphing!!! LOL He Called Him Out On All That Crap!! LOL

          1. old_blu October 23, 2012

            You are right he isn’t even a half way decent liar. Good evening Fern.

      2. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

        You are stupid funny!!!!! LOL and LMBO!!!! You are exactly right but just worry not, there will NEVER be another repuke-lican in office again EVER. Old Bushee left some serious scars. I love and forgive him as a woman of God but he has runined any chances of the conservatives ever being able to hold office as POTUS!!!! They are hypocrites-Oppose abortion, gay marriage and contraception funding (as I do oppose but the Constitution MUST BE honored) yet lie and flip flop like there is no tomorrow! Mormonism is not pure Christianity and therefore Romney is a devil worshipper because they BELIEVE NOT the bible 100%!!!!!! Thanks Oil Man Bushee and now how is Bushee? He has been hiding behind the Bushes, a sign of TRUE GUILT!!!!! Hardy har HORRIBLE!!!!!!

        1. Colt October 23, 2012

          you’re so childish, they shouldn’t allow you to vote.

          1. old_blu October 23, 2012

            They shouldn’t allow stupid people ^ to vote either, as you can see.

        2. Cairndance October 23, 2012

          Last week Romney met and prayed with Billy Graham. Immediately afterwards the Mormom Religion was REMOVED from their website list of CULTS! Hypocrits – all of them!

          Sunday in church, a visiting pastor, related this event to everyone. He then stated that he did, in fact, believe that the Mormon religion is a CULT.

          Then he stated that he would vote for him anyway!

          An Evangelical Pastor stated that he would vote for a CULT MEMBER!
          Hypocrits are everywhere!

          1. FredAppell October 23, 2012

            Dude! My mouth dropped when I read your post. Where did you hear that and why isn’t being reported on? That could be the deal breaker for an awful lot of people. Very good post,thanks.

          2. Cairndance October 23, 2012

            I read it first in the newspaper on saturday and then on Sunday my visiting pastor repeated it.
            The Evangelical Pastor said that he still felt The Mormon Religion is a Cult (whether Billy Graham has decided it is no longer a cult or not), but that he will vote for Romney anyway!
            Evangelical pastors and the Catholic Church have endorsed Romney!
            Hypocrits are everywhere!
            I need a new church!

          3. Sand_Cat October 24, 2012

            You need to realize that they’re all man-made and corrupt, as illustrated by this incident, and think about whether the god they describe is anything more than a tyrant dressed in fancy words and one who doesn’t exist to boot.

          4. FredAppell October 24, 2012

            No my friend you do not need a church at all. If you have God in your heart then you have the only church you need. That was Christ’s message to the masses. No person has the right to tell you how to believe. That’s personal between you and God. It is no different than any of your other important and meaningful relationships. You wouldn’t have a third person telling you how to conduct your relationships would you? Of coarse you wouldn’t. God knows your love and devotion. Sorry about my rant but there is a point to it. I don’t believe these are men of peace, I believe these are men bent on controlling everyone and everything for the sake of personal pleasure and ego. At this point, I don’t see a difference between religious leaders and these egocentric maniacs. People desperately need to wake up and pay attention NOW!!!!!!

          5. Cairndance October 24, 2012

            Thank you Fred for a very thoughtful response!
            It makes no sense that President Obama had to spend so much time 4 years ago defending his Christianity, but Romney seems to get a pass, even from Billy Graham!
            I’ve been considering leaving my church for the past couple of years and now I think it’s time to leave organized religion behind!
            It seems that hate for Obama is all that matters to the Religious Right!
            God is definately in my heart and in my home and that’s all that matters now!

          6. jarheadgene October 24, 2012

            The first time I heard Franklin Graham downing Obama and talking up Romney a few month ago…..I thought…WTF…doesn’t he know the diff? And he is the one that lead Romney to Billy….WTF.

          7. jarheadgene October 24, 2012

            HEY look it is ROMNEY visiting Billy Graham….sound familiar?….check out GENESIS.

        3. DurdyDawg October 23, 2012

          You’d hide out too if several countries slapped a bounty on you’re ass for blatant war crimes, dead or alive! He’s safe so long as he remains hidden under his family oil derricks.. It’s the rest of the world that wants blood… No more winters in the Caymans for dubya that’s for sure.

    3. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

      I thought that was what he got tanned for, last summer, oh that was when he was talking to Hispanics.

    4. Fern Woodfork October 23, 2012

      Romney Is The World Greatest Con Man What Wont He Do To Close The Deal!!

    5. Dominick Vila October 23, 2012

      President Obama was in command of the foreign policy debate from beginning to end. His understanding of the subject matter contrasted with the superficiality of Romney’s performance, which was limited to reading the lines he memorized.
      President Obama’s rebuttal about horses and bayonets exposed Romney’s lack of familiarity with foreign policy and modern day military strategy. Romney put the last nail in his coffin when he said that if elected the first thing he would do is accuse China of being currency manipulators. That is a non-starter and a recipe for disaster. China has, indeed, manipulated its currency and stole intellectual property from us and Western Europe, but you don’t start a relationship with your largest trading partner, creditor, and the holder of $2T in reserves by calling them unscrupulous traders. You first try behind the scenes diplomacy, exert diplomatic and/or commercial pressure if necessary, before you engage in immature Tea Party rhetoric.
      Obama’s performance was outstanding. The best that can be said about Romney when it comes to foreign policy is that he memorized his lines.

      1. old_blu October 23, 2012

        You are absolutely right Doninick, when Romney started talkng about “the apology tour” I thought he’s quoting Rush, and Rush can lie all he wants because when he does he just says he’s an entertainer, but Our President can’t do that.

  2. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

    If Romney snuggles up any closer to Obama’s positions he will need to flip-flop on LGBT rights — again. It’s clear that this man has nothing to offer America, and simply feels that he is ‘due’ the Presidency. I guess if all of America shows up drunk at the polls on November 6 and somehow manages to abide all of the whoppers and elect Romney, we will have the very first White House ‘dancing horsey’. Good Lord, how did we ever sink this low?

    1. Jim Myers October 23, 2012

      Replying to WhutHeSaid

      When you asked “Good Lord, how did we ever sink this low?” The simple answer is this. “W”.

      When George the Second turned the entire world against us, and managed to bankrupt the entire United States, each State individually, and ultimately the rest of the world, he set the bar at an unknown level.

      It is now up to Mitt to do his best to do even worse.

      1. Nancy October 23, 2012

        Thank God there are still smart Americans out there. Your sentiments are mine to the T. How could anyone in this country even pretend to think that GW was good enough for a second term (questionably legitimately) and then want to elect a man with no idea of how or what it takes to be President in the world of 2012. Romney only knows how to change his mind, lay off or fire people for the sake of the 1%, and also cause mis-trust with the leaders of the rest of the world. Wake up America. We need someone that has stopped our country from collapsing into Depression again and truly feels for the middle class and the poor. Someone born into the elite has no real idea of what it takes to make it in the world!!

        1. Faraday_Cat October 23, 2012

          My hope is that there are still sufficient numbers of people out there who still can’t stomach voting for Mitt even if they’re not for Obama (think Ron Paul supporters), even more so as Romney flipped and flopped through all three debates, who will choose one of the other 12 candidates listed on the ballot and syphon votes away from R Money.

          Speaking of flip-flopping in the debates, I still say that was the biggest problem that Obama had…the Romneybot that showed up for that first debate was a brand new model no one had ever seen before!

    2. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

      Aw he did! YOu are all too right!!!!!

      1. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

        I just love the TRUTH IN HUMOR!!!!! LMH-PO=Laugh My Hind-parts Offf and with the hindparts that God has blessed this sistah with, that’s a lot of darn laughing!!!!!!!!

  3. montanabill October 23, 2012

    Speaking of all over the map, “I called it an act of terror”, “We need to get all the facts”, “It was demonstration over a film”. That pretty much sums up President Obama. For any issue, you can find him saying stuff on all sides of it, so that no matter what happens, he can say, “As I said…”. He’s the boss who takes credit for your work while blaming you for anything he did wrong.

    “We have these things called aircraft carriers.” Of course we do, but we don’t have enough of them or there would have been one close enough to Benghazi to have been able to respond to a 6 hour attack. That was the point, Mr. President.

    Last night, he was simply a petty little man trying to defend an abysmal record.

    1. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

      Pssst … Bill, Obama won the debate.

      Just thought you’d like to know.

      1. montanabill October 23, 2012

        We shall see.

        1. Dianes4babies October 23, 2012

          We DID see!

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            I think you saw what you wanted to see. I saw it exactly opposite, but then my bias is different than your bias. The election will tell us who won.

          2. BDD1951 October 23, 2012

            In other words you saw what you wanted to see.

          3. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

            Like most GOP…..but Democrats were open enough to totally admit the loss of the first debate by our President. Loss to a BULLY…now that Bully has lost all his clout, he boned up on his names of leaders and countries, but he gaffed on his geography. And when your heart is all about yourself and your money….all of last night was about words…words…words. Really unimportant to Romney.

          4. montanabill October 23, 2012

            Didn’t you?

          5. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

            So you saw romney as well versed and ready to handle international affairs?? You know he actually had some experience with handling the olympics (way more than forign affairs) but he still managed to piss off ENGLAND in two days. ENGLAND you know the guys who still basically worship America for pulling their ass out in WWII…yeah those guys our staunchest allies. HOW IN THE HELL do you think he is going to do in a situation with an adversary when he pisses off friends. He can’t even point to some of the trouble spots on a map, that’s how much he knows.

            The difference between my bais and yours is mine is based on reality and yours is based on a giant pile of misinformation put out by a rightwing infotainment industry. Every time someone catches Rush in a lie he claims he’s an entertainer…but then goes right back to spouting BS because he knows you and your bubble head posse aren’t listening to anyone else.

          6. neece00 October 23, 2012

            Unless montana was watching a different debate than we watched.

        2. Devens_resident October 23, 2012

          Bill how can you “see” with you head stuck in such a dark hole.

          1. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

            It is really hard to have empathy for ALL those GOP cases of “Cranial Rectumitis” when it is self-imposed.

      2. dotutz October 23, 2012

        Hands Down, he won!!!! If people vote Romney in, it will make the Bush’s 8 years look like a walk in the park, even with the two wars and near depression. How stupid can these people be? I keep asking my Republican family and friends what are you thinking?????

        1. darkagesbegin October 23, 2012

          What do they say? I don’t have any republican friends to ask.

          1. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

            In my case…they all spew out FOX news rhetoric…..verbatim. Any debates or arguments with them is like arguing with Sean Hannity or Bill O’Rielly……How do you argue with a LYING FOOL. Best thing is walk away and pray…..worst for them is that you walk away and pray.

          2. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

            LOL…I FULLY agree!!!!

          3. dotutz October 23, 2012

            Oh things like 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and it wasn’t his fault, Romney knows how to get jobs because he and Ryan are business men, they really don’t like Obama because he’s (1) not American (2) Black (3) Democrat (4) Muslim and a lot of other things that I won’t even mention! You know, I’m an old woman and I remember every President since FDR, but I don’t remember people being so mean-natured! Granted, things could be better, but the hole that Bush got us in is going to take more than 4 years to get out of. If they could open their eyes, they could see that we are slowly coming back. We are Americans after all!

          4. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

            I love the TRUTH and this is one reason I LOVE YOU!!!!!

          5. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

            Dotutz, I don’t remember such ugliness as there is now and I have also gone a ways down the road.

            It is like studying the rise and fall of The Roman Empire and all the other civilizations in that time. The civilized world had art and music and indoor plumbing. They built fantastic buildings. Along came the Barbarians and destroyed their civilizations.

            We, too, had progressed and I saw a kinder world and the end of terrorism in the Deep South. We are the civilization that the modern day barbarians are trying to destroy.

          6. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

            You know …just as a historical aside…during the Pax Romana 500 years of peace the senate was made of people who had served in the Legions and had witnessed first hand the ugliness of war. At the fall of the roman empire the senate was made of rich priviledged sons of warriors who thought war was glorious.. Quote “Dolce et decorum est pro patria mori.” They only knew the legends of heros not the heart break of watching your friends guts leak out. They loved the idea of conquering but wanted no part of it for themselves so they hired mercenaries to fight and claimed victory because it was their money that paid them…our house and senate is about 80% non vet, and we have blackwater mercenaries fighting under our flag…I’m not saying it is a prerequisit to effective governance but …history says when the people declaring war have no skin in the game and no concept of what skin in the game even feels like we are in deep trouble.

        2. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

          Keep asking to the point even past the 2nd term of our CURRENT President to ensure we NEVER EVER vote Repuke-lican!!!!!!

        3. grammyjill October 23, 2012

          Do you get anwsers?

          1. dotutz October 24, 2012

            Oh yes! You should hear some of them and most of them want to fight with me. My kids call me a “bleeding heart liberal”, but it rolls off my back like water! The only one I don’t argue with is my new gentleman friend, we decided that was one thing we would not argue about. I’ll tell you some Republicans must feel that they must apologize for their vote (to tell you the truth, I agree that they should).

          2. grammyjill October 24, 2012

            Yea, I agree they should apologize for voting for republicans also. I don’t get into politcal wars with anyone except on this blog, but have had talks, some a little heated. So far I’ve talked six republicans into not voting that way this time. I have to give alot of credit to the republicans for making my job easier though. Can you believe these idiots?

      3. BDD1951 October 23, 2012

        Good one!!

    2. YepThatTell October 23, 2012

      No, the point is that Romney is clueless on foreign policy and deserved to be schooled by our President.

      1. montanabill October 23, 2012

        So you think Obama schooled Romney. I am reminded of Obama’s mindless call for more math teachers. Apparently he doesn’t know that we aren’t graduating math teachers to be hired. I’ve been out of college for a few years, but I distinctly remember that a lot of my fellow beginning engineering, math and physics classmates very quickly changed their major to education when they discovered how difficult some of those classes could be. I doubt it has changed. So it goes with the President. Just who trained the President in foreign policy? Is it like his knowledge of business and economics? Something he is simply winging? Sure looks like it.

        1. Jim Lou October 23, 2012

          The reason that there aren’t math teachers is that there is little in the way of actual training for their training.

          To teach math you need to have a math background and have the requisite education courses. This means that more math majors need to be encouraged to want to teach. That isn’t being done.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            Absolutely correct!

        2. YepThatTell October 23, 2012

          Montana bill you’re never going to be persuaded otherwise so I will not bother to respond to your pointless remarks. But I agree with your implying that your friends were fit to be trained as neither teachers nor engineers.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            Didn’t say friends…classmates. The ones I did know that switched majors actually went on to become teachers or dropped out. Those of us who stuck it out became engineers and scientists, and a couple like me, eventually created our own businesses. Not that it matters, but I wanted more than just science and engineering degrees so I stayed around long enough to take economics, lots of history, art, religion and other liberal arts classes. I also taught graduate level engineering classes at a major university for a couple of years.

          2. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

            Again I am surprised, not at your accomplishments, your position, unless I have misread, you better than most, should understand the need to improve in this area.

          3. montanabill October 23, 2012

            I have understood that problem from my high school days when gym teachers and assistant coaches were assigned to teach geometry, trig and advanced algebra because none of the other teachers wanted those classes. It was true during my kids school years and, with the exception of a private schooled grandchild, my public schooled grandchildren are even further behind. ‘No child left behind’ results in every child left behind. The same ‘one size fits all solutions’ you expect from big government. But it still gets back to the question, where are the math teachers going to come from? And not just math, but physics and chemistry. Who’s training them?

          4. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

            Well I can honestly say that I have witnessed an increase in technical high schools in my area that focus on just those subjects. The goal is to produce more engineers and scientist and help those people like my wife and niece who love numbers, to pursue their quest with some assistance when needed.

          5. montanabill October 24, 2012

            My opinion is that one of the biggest mistakes of the past was the phasing out of technical schools. Not everyone is cut out for college and there are many good paying trades which are absolutely necessary to our communities. Nor, do I believe the apprenticeships that unions require (or maybe they don’t anymore) are producing skilled craftsman, if the plumbers or electricians I have used in the past few years are any indication.
            Getting a degree in any of the sciences is hard work. The courses are difficult and you simply can’t sail through by underlining key facts. It takes discipline and the ability to keep studying when your dorm mates are partying.
            Just to get political for a minute. It used to be that some our best and brightest wanted to be doctors. It paid well. You could help your community and be held in esteem. Far different today. Like pharmacists, physicians are becoming a ‘license on the wall’. It is no longer such an attractive profession and we will pay the price for it.

          6. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            We are in agreement, I just don’t believe that Romney would take that route.

          7. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

            Bill that’s the point exactly…no one is training them and that’s exactly why Obama is calling for us to do a better job at it….what do you hear him saying..”hey man we need these dudes lets do this!!” he is saying exactly what you are saying and he is calling for the necessary changes to be made to allow us to move forward.
            Mittens on the other hand will tell you how broke the middle class is and then suggest that kids get a loan from their previously mentioned BROKE parents. Do you honestly know any middle class parents who have the spare cash laying around to pay for tuition…I have been saving for a while and could probably get my son through a state school, it wouldn’t be easy but it is possible. My son however is a very sharp kid who deserves to go to a top flight school and ther is no way to pay for that without grants and loans or a trust fund and millionair dad.

          8. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Not at all what he is saying, but so be it.
            Guess what I did when my less than middle class parents couldn’t pay a dime toward my college? Hint, I didn’t borrow any money and I still managed to pay for eight years of college education without a scholarship. It is a nasty four letter word starting with ‘w’.

          9. Cairndance October 23, 2012

            WOW, such credentials!

            Obama was elected President of the Harvard Law Review and was a Professor of Constitutional Law!

            So you think that your degrees are worth something but the Presidents are bunk?

          10. montanabill October 24, 2012

            We know he was elected President of the HLR, but we don’t know the circumstances.
            He was a lecturer and then a senior lecturer. Though the University of Chicago may consider that as ‘professor’ level status, that would not be the case at the schools I attended or where I was considered a lecturer.
            His schedule from the school shows him teaching two or three classes in the fall and winter terms — usually Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process; Voting Rights and the Democratic Process; and Current Issues in Racism and the Law.
            The President’s education is like mine would have been had I stayed strictly on an engineering track, very narrow.

          11. Regina Lighteard October 24, 2012

            How many “pell grants”, did you receive and use to help you obtain your education?

          12. Regina Lighteard October 24, 2012

            Disregard my question Bill, I got my answer. I’m glad you worked and paid for your education and congrats on your achievements. But it is wrong and unfair for you to blame and accuse President Obama for a broken down education system. Do you credit any blame for Bush #2. Because remember,” NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND”.

          13. montanabill October 24, 2012

            None. No grants, no scholarships, no loans, no gifts, no family money.
            I used a thing called ‘work’.

        3. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

          Bill….well for ONE, the President has a team of advisors….plus V.P. Biden is very capable in Foreign Policy. UNLIKE …..Willard has 17 of his 24 foreign affairs advisors…..that are Cheney/Bush re-treads……what a JOKE.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            His advisors are David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, true experts in Foreign Policy. But he does have Biden, who is an expert in other worldly affairs.

        4. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

          Again you are surprising me. The President is seeking to address the issue that you allude to in your post. This training starts at the elementary grade school level. Our future is in our children, avenues have to be provided so that everyone who is willing to work and study can at least have an opportunity for success. Not to mention that if we don’t reverse what you yourself described, we will definitely not be able to maintain our standing in the global picture.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            There is a bit of chicken and egg situation here. I don’t think we have the luxury of waiting 16 years to get more and better trained math/science students into the work force but we may not have a choice. One of the primary reasons we don’t have better trained middle school and high school math/science teachers is because it isn’t emphasized in the teacher education curriculum. My opinion is that colleges should immediately require more math/science rigor for teachers so that they will be qualified when they leave school to teach those subjects. That can start now, but it still take years to see an effect.

          2. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

            We definitely don’t have 16 years. As a former elementary school teacher who was thrown into teaching a science class because no one would even try, I can identify with what you are saying. I am sure that you also realize that we lost a lot of our qualified Math and Science teachers due to the fact that they could be better compensated in private industry. Teachers salaries should be commiserate with their importance to the future of our society. Their salaries are and have been to low for quite some time. Make the incentives more rewarding to attract those we must have to insure our countries positive future.

          3. montanabill October 24, 2012

            I certainly agree on restructuring salaries and creating incentives for good teaching. A lot of us are to blame because, historically, we have been willing to underpay teachers. However, whether true or not, what we see is ever high amounts of money thrown into education that goes to administration buildings, administrators, and pay distribution dictated by teacher unions that reward longevity without any consideration for quality or innovation.
            I’m particularly quizzical about colleges. The costs have gone out of sight, but what have we to show for it?

          4. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            Again we are in agreement. Why have we stood by and allowed education cost to go crazy? Why is more money being consumed in administration fees as oposed to the actual education of our children, again our fault And there definitely should be a system of weeding out those nonproductive teachers and administrators

          5. montanabill October 24, 2012

            We are in agreement. Unfortunately, I suspect both sides will have to break some eggs to get it accomplished. Republicans with funding and Democrats with breaking the hold of the teacher unions.

          6. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            As a Vice President of a Local for 17 years, I can acknowledge that they may have fattened the pot a little to much in some instances. However, I also know that without the Unions and people coming together the working conditions and the mistreatment of the worker would still be normal as it still is in some places in this country. The Coal Industry readily comes to mind.

          7. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Unions, indeed, played a vital role in creating a fair working environment. And they used to be instrumental in making sure apprentices actually learned the trade. Fattening the pot was just one problem. In too many instances, they required employers to keep workers that should have been let go. My father ran and became President of his local just so he could insure that local employers got good, well trained workers. Previously, people with union cards would come to town and claim jobs which they were really not trained for and simply wanted enough on the job time for unemployment benefits.
            New York City today loses lots of convention business simply because of silly union requirements like requiring a union guy plug your computer in for you, at a pretty penny.

          8. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            So can we agree that the Unions were and still are a vital part of the work scene. Although there should be some serious adjustments to address the areas that have gotten out of control..

          9. montanabill October 24, 2012

            I have no problem with unions per se, but I see them a lot like Congress. Union leaders think they have to do something to justify their positions just like Congressmen think they have to pass something to justify their positions. Sometimes, its better to just keep an even keel and not do anything unless it needs doing. A fair number of towns have lost their livelihood simply because making a point was more important than keeping a company.

          10. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            Well now you have met one whose only interest is in making sure that the worker is treated with respect and not taken advantage of in any way.

          11. montanabill October 25, 2012

            It works the other way too. The disabilities act and the discrimination act are often used by, let’s say less than optimal employees, to force an employer to keep them on when they know they are about to be let go for cause. All they have to do is file a claim. It can take up to six months to be processed, cost the employer to respond, and in the meantime, the employer dare not fire the employee. Even after the complaint is found invalid, dismissal will likely result in a retaliation claim. This can go on almost indefinitely.

          12. puzzled21 October 25, 2012

            We know the system isn’t perfect and definitely needs some adjustments on both sides. I understand the devastation of closing factories to a community. I have friends and relatives who went into the factory straight out of high school, work there 25/30 years only to have it close and they are to young to retire with their whole way of life gone in an instant. Can we ever reach a balance where human dignity and profit margin can co-exist?

          13. montanabill October 25, 2012

            A short answer: no. Generally in those cases, it was not profit margin but survival of the company. Either the employees would have to agree to work for substantially less, which usually doesn’t happen, or the company knows that it would be useless to ask that of its employees. Believe me, the one thing that managers hate the most is when they have to let someone go, especially if they know that employee has been a good employee. If is the most difficult thing they ever have to do. When a whole company moves, while some management may go with the remains, it will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
            A good friend of mine had worked his way up to being the manager of a large assembly plant for one of the largest computer companies in the World. Suddenly the PC appeared. It was the same effect the automobile had on the buggy industry. Within a couple of years, his plant was gone and he was out of work at age 50. He never worked again because his experience no longer fit and his education was out of date. He survived by learning how to manage his savings and making good investments with it.

          14. puzzled21 October 25, 2012

            There have been situations when the employees have been willing to take a cut in benefits and salary only to be refused due to management’s unwillingness to wait the time necessary to fully recover.

          15. montanabill October 26, 2012

            Yes, that’s true. But we don’t know that their assessment predicted recovery or it pointed to a higher percentage of success solution.

          16. puzzled21 October 26, 2012

            That is where I have problems with this system. It always leans to the side of profit margins, in my opinion, and fails to understand, not only the human factor, but the overall ripple effect to communities, neighborhoods and eventually cities..

          17. montanabill October 26, 2012

            It always leans toward profit margins because businesses are created for only one reason: to make money. Other systems have been tried, but so far, no one has invented one that works as well as capitalism. It is kind of like life, it is not always fair and adaptation is a necessary skill.

          18. puzzled21 October 26, 2012

            Correct, however in my mind we must be able to create a balance if we have any hope of surviving.I endorse the capitalistic system, I just don’t believe that we are to discount everything else, the environment and humanity, for the sake of making a profit. I consider myself as one of the fortunate in this country and believe all of us deserve the opportunity to live in peace with dignity and respect. My fear is that if we continue down this road we will finally be two societies the haves and the have nots. Have you ever cornered an animal before? No matter how small, they rise up and become dangerous, as will anyone when they feel they don’t have anything to loose. Desperation brings about irrational thinking and choices and violence. How long will I watch my children go hungry before I do what ever I need to do. Especially if I am convinced that the system is against me..

          19. montanabill October 26, 2012

            Ok, here is the situation. Middle class and the poor need jobs. Where do jobs come from? Existing businesses expanding or new businesses created to either meet needs or creating desires. Remember a few years ago, just before easy loans exploded. There was a lot of new technology. It was creating businesses and jobs like crazy. Not only that, but because of the competition for the skills required for these jobs, companies were offering all kinds of benefits. That, in turn, fed everyone in the trade industries. With the jobs and enthusiasm, people felt free to buy consumer goods, further stoking the economy. Had ‘affordable housing’ not created an abnormal bubble, it was a pretty sustainable model.
            We are never going to be able to create an economy again on jobs that don’t require skills. The world is just full of over populated countries that will take unskilled jobs at lower cost.
            Another current problem. The money being printed, about $1 trillion, is causing prices to rise. Commodities, like oil, will always inflate to maintain their relative value. When they rise in price, everything else follows. We are seeing that now and it hurts the poor and people on fixed incomes hardest. We are seeing the middle class decline as the relative worth of their incomes moves them down economically and a stagnant economy keeps salary growth under inflation rates. Our borrowing of 40 cents of every dollar spent is creating an enormous interest burden that will greatly limit the government’s flexibility on spending for education, infrastructure maintenance and investments in scientific research.
            There is only one way to turn this around. Private industry must regain some confidence that investment will be worth while. Business has lots of stored, retained cash, just waiting a signal that spending it in the U.S. could result in a return.
            Electing Romney, like him or not, is about the only thing that will send a signal that the days of success being attacked are over for awhile. Obama is a very likeable guy, but frankly, he has scared the living daylights out of most business people with his policies and he hasn’t given one indication that he would change or moderate.
            I have my doubts that Romney will ever become a great President, but another four years 0f decline, inflation and debt will be catastrophic.

          20. puzzled21 October 26, 2012

            You are preaching to the choir as far as small business and economic growth are concerned . My childhood was spent hearing about how home ownership and being self employed was the key to financial independence. I also agree that new employment avenues need to be explored. I believe that there are vast opportunities to create massive job growth through rebuilding our infrastructure, especially since there would be many feeder businesses involved and perhaps created in the process.It is also my position that had the banks made the loans to the small businesses as they were supposed to, the situation would be a lot different. I also believe we should be moving away from fossil fuels and really investing in alternatives. I also understand the resistance to moving away from fossil fuels. You are right, they do have cash to invest. The part that is hard for me to accept is that the profit margin comes before country. All of those who have earned enough money to take it to another country, or move factories there, were able to do so because they live in this country and they show their loyalty by doing the very thing that will injure the country most, hindering economic growth..

          21. montanabill October 27, 2012

            As long as banks can get money at 0% from the Fed and loan it back to the Fed at 3%, they will not be lending to individuals and small business.
            I don’t think there is a resistance to moving away from fossil fuels. It is simply not yet practical. Just doing the math on the difference between buying a ‘fuel efficient’ car and a normal fuel car shows the ‘return’ is way down the road. That is pretty much the same situation as with other alternative energy situations. As soon as the economics become equal, there will be a large shift to fuel efficient.
            Large companies are pretty much all multi-national, so country plays little part in their decision making, and that is just not companies that are or were U.S. based, it is world wide.

          22. puzzled21 October 27, 2012

            We can stop that practice if we spoke out as one voice. I don’t have all of the variables where fossil fuels are concerned. I do know that LA was being consumed by smog, so much so you might not see the sky for days at at time. Mandates in California evolved into a successful, efficient electric car. The project was so successful at addressing the air pollution that some great mind decided to recall all of these cars and would not allow citizens to even purchase them. They were hauled off in the middle of the night and destroyed. Why? Closer scrutiny reveals the oil industry in the mix. All of this is public information.

          23. FredAppell October 23, 2012

            Bill, I never agree with you but you do have some valid points but you are not entirely correct. One of the reasons why math scores are down is because of our over reliance on computers. Technology has created a dumbing down effect. As far as the one size fits all style of education goes, well I just don’t see that happening. Case in point, I heard somewhere that the Civil War has been labeled the the Northern War Of Aggression in some parts of the south with very different outcomes. Now, I grew up in New England where the educational system is known to be exceptional in the public school system. This was during the eighties when Reagan was president. Guess what my worst subject was? If you guessed math, you are correct. I failed math because I couldn’t grasp it. Should I blame Reagan or the DOE or perhaps it was the local BOE or maybe even the school itself. No! I take complete responsibility for failing math because I was so embarrassed that I never sought extra help. Conservatives love blaming the Government for every failure in their lives. Maybe they should take a good look in the mirror to find the real culprit. I know I do.

          24. grammyjill October 23, 2012

            I sucked at math too. Strange, my last job was book keeper.

          25. FredAppell October 24, 2012

            Now that was funny. I appreciate the irony.

          26. montanabill October 24, 2012

            The only place I would take issue with you is about conservatives blaming government for life failures. Conservatives are about individual initiative and the freedom to pursue it, failure or success. Conservatives have issue with government when government sets up roadblocks to individual initiative. Along with successes, I’ve had my share of failures. None of which I ever thought the government had a hand in. That said, I have had to fight long and expensive battles with governments over zoning and building permits. All eventually won, but a person with lessor resources would have been defeated. Defeat would have meant that the jobs eventually created would never have been created.

          27. grammyjill October 23, 2012

            My daughter use to build robots in school. The club got help from engineers, etc. from the local area. Maybe we could do something along those lines until we graduate some. By the way, my daughter invented part of one of the robots, she was 16. And Dean Kamen wanted to hire her at age 15.

          28. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Excellent! A lot of technical people are very willing to give their time to such projects. I can tell you that engineers don’t generally make good classroom teachers. Most of their liberal arts classes, English, composition, etc. was limited to their freshman year, basically one semester of each. They are not trained in speaking or general communications. But they can mentor or assist in math, chem and physics.

          29. grammyjill October 24, 2012

            Another problem is the thinking in the school system itself.
            When my youngest son started high school he was put in a triganomitry class. He loved it. Said it was fun. Then the school got his records and found out he was ADHD and took him out of that class and put him in basic math. They didn’t think he could handle the six pages of homework every day. The easier solution was give him a study hall after the class to get the work done. Long story short, he got really bored and quit school. After two years of playing video games, he went and took his GED. Got really high marks. Schools need to be fixed!

          30. montanabill October 24, 2012

            The school is obviously not up to speed on the capabilities of special needs children. Some can do astounding math, some can’t add two numbers. Some of the them thrive on history, boring to others. They are special needs, not handicapped.
            Big problem in an ‘everybody gets treated the same’ structure. That is one reason why home schooled kids generally wind up way ahead of public school kids.

          31. grammyjill October 24, 2012

            Some home schooled kids do great some don’t. I learned with my 4, all adhd, all different was find what they really like to do and nudge them in that direction. A little easier with my boys but my girls do pretty well. My two oldest graduated from high school with honors, the two youngest quit and got ged’s. They are all really smart. I need my car fixed, I call my oldest son. He’s a 1800 miles away, but can talk me through the repair. My computer has a problem, that’s the youngest son. The girls are combo adhd so they pretty much excell at anything they feel like doing. When the two oldest were in school the school would do what was needed to see that they didn’t fail. By the time the other two got there, you had to be a robot fitting into the same box as everyone else.

          32. montanabill October 25, 2012

            That is the key. Everyone is an individual with different strengths and different desires. The solution for your kids works well for everyone. Too many people simply take a job to earn an income. If they would simply do a little soul searching, determine what they really want to do and then work to become the very best they can at it, income usually follows and certainly a more contented life.

      2. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

        17 of Romney’s foreign policy advisors are from the Bush Cabinet.

        1. neece00 October 23, 2012

          That must be where he gets his information for getting into another war.

    3. Dianes4babies October 23, 2012

      Wow, talk about completely twisting things around….you’ve been listening to Romney far too long!!

      1. montanabill October 23, 2012

        Like to point out the twists? Maybe you could find an issue where the President hasn’t danced it. Be careful, all of his words are on the record.

        1. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

          Well, I’d say that Osama Bin Laden didn’t enjoy his ‘dance’ very much.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            Very true, but there is still a bunch enjoying the sunshine at Guantanamo while
            al-Zawahiri and mullah Omar still run free, and, as Romney pointed out, growing numbers throughout Africa, Yemen and other mid-east states.

          2. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

            Well, by all means let’s have Romney go ask these evil countries to turn them over at once. See how easy that was? Not.

          3. montanabill October 23, 2012

            Let’s just say that Obama removed, “have them on the run” from his al qaeda reference in his stump speech. An honest look at the situation might result in a better policy. That is what Romney was saying.

          4. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

            yes and mittens will have boots on the ground and planes in the air at a moments notice to go clean it all up….you know I hate to bring this up because it is one of my favorite movies to laugh at but have you seen the movie “Team America World Police”? It bears a striking similarity to Mitt’s position on forign affairs. Seriously Bill it makes fun of everyone equally for instance Micheal Moore blows himself up as he is pigging down a hotdog…but the underlying message is pretty much what mitt is espousing.

            And for the record the movie is hilarious…you should watch it i guarentee you will laugh and if you go at it with an open mind it might even be slightly educational….it is a comedy about a tragedy.

          5. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Might be worth it just to see Michael Moore exploding. Other than that, you are simply trying to excuse bad policy and bad actions.

        2. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

          Which Romney did you like best?

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            The one that will concentrate on getting the American economy and jobs back.

          2. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

            You are aware of all of the American Companies that Romney and his friends have closed and fired American workers and sent their jobs to China, Japan, Brazil, Malaysia, Mexico etc., the latest being Sensata on 11-5-2012. I wonder if those American workers who were forced to train those who were going to take their jobs, feel about Romney who refused to meet with them,as the job creator. The great compassionate person of the middle class. By the way if you check the stock market you will see that they were now producing record profits. So much for job creation from Romney. He will create jobs but you will have to live in another country to benefit.

          3. montanabill October 23, 2012

            That is lemon picking at its best. Please get the full story. Only some companies are reporting profits, others are reporting losses. The market itself is driven by emotion, not very much by the real record of the companies.
            I know that job exporting line is straight from the Democrat playbook, but it isn’t anymore true than blaming Obama for an even larger job loss overseas under his watch. Each situation has to be viewed and analyzed independently. For example, if a product largely requires unskilled labor to produce it, expect that the job will go to the country with workers willing to work for less money. When their standard of living rises, the job will move again.

          4. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

            I have to disagree based on the fact that we both know that it is not a line. There is actual definitive factual verifiable documentation to support Romney’s negative history where this topic is concerned. A great deal of this information is a matter of public record. There is nothing surprising about this behavior after all he is a capitalist as we all are to a certain extent.

          5. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Bain under Romney did have failures, just as every other funding company. The initial part of each story is that the companies in question were failing and about to go under. Bain injected capital and management and tried to turn them around. It is far more profitable to them to be successful than to have to liquidate.

          6. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            I know it is all legal, is it moral?

          7. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Moral has nothing to do with it. Businesses are not about morality or altruism.

          8. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            That is the central problem in this society today. Every man for himself. I believe if you have been blessed it is for you to be a blessing.

          9. montanabill October 24, 2012

            I wouldn’t characterize it as a problem, it is simply the way businesses are. Typically, many businesses are benefactors of their communities, but the reality is that it is because it is good for business, not because they feel an obligation. Individuals are quite different. Most successful people are very big contributors to charity and to their communities. It may be direct or through a foundation. Such charity is far more directed and efficient than government programs. Romney gives 20% of his income to charity. A large part of that is to church related charity, but the Mormons are well known for helping others outside of their own. For example, they were the first group into New Orleans after Katrina.

          10. Cairndance October 23, 2012

            So are you saying that the workers at Sensata were not required to train the Chinese workers who will take their jobs, and company, on November 5th?
            If they really cared they would have waited until after the election to make the move to China.
            What this shows is that they just don’t care, they are only in it for the money!

          11. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Was someone holding a gun to their heads?
            A clue: all businesses are in it only for the money!

          12. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

            The topic is Sensata…record profits and Mitt shipped it to China …the jobs AND the US developed TECH…read up on that it was MITT not BAIN on this one and it happened as he was running all over the country talking about creating jobs. BIG DISCONNECT between what he says and what he does…but I think you know actions speak louder than words and in this case SENSATA speaks louder than baseless gibberish from a two faced assbag. really Bill you are far too smart to fall for this crap. go look it up..if you can read through that report and find a shread of defense for mittens I’d be pleased to have a pleasant conversation about it…I bet you just hang your head and wonder WTF…that’s what I did.

          13. montanabill October 24, 2012

            It was Bain and Romney had left. Here is something you and others need to get clear. Businesses are created and operate to make money. Nothing else. Business will create jobs if it helps make money. Businesses will be good to their employees if doing so will help them succeed. If not, they are under no obligation to hire or offer benefits to anyone. If a business plan says they can make more money by moving to the next town or to another country, they will do it. It has nothing to do with altruism or ‘feel good’. Now you may not like that definition. If not, then you start a business, hire a lot of people, give them medical and dental insurance, weeks of paid vacation, a week of holidays, fund their retirement and don’t pay any attention as to whether you are making money or not.

          14. neece00 October 23, 2012

            I think that mr montana is one of the 1% and therefore, he is worried his taxes will go up and he might have to explain his off shore accounts.

        3. karinursula October 23, 2012

          So are Romney’s. He said time and time again that teachers, cops and firefighters are NOT his first priority.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            And they should not be. Teachers, cops and firefighters are local responsibilities.

          2. Tom_D44 October 23, 2012

            And, Teachers do not build or stimulate an economy. They provide services that will have a long term affect on our people but do not create jobs. This is why I get so annoyed when Obama says his plan is to invest in teachers and education – no disrespect to teachers.

            Motivated people create jobs. Motivated people seek out the education they need to be successful. Some wealthy people are handed nice educations and make nothing of it out of laziness or lack of appreciation for it. Likewise some poor people find the resources to get the education they need, generally appreciate it more because they have to work for it, and make more out of it. And, of course in my generalization, we know that all people are individuals and will make out of this life what they choose to. This is a difference between individuals and you can never even out that playing field no matter how hard you try.

            Yes, it is good to have a long term plan to provide a good education for our people. But that is not a fix for our failing economy and certainly isn’t going to do anything very quickly.

            The other whole pile of crap that Obama has been selling is this taxing the rich idea. It’s total garbage. It presents an image of doing what is fair but to say that it is an actual solution is ridiculous. Most wealthy people I know probably wouldn’t mind paying a little more in taxes if they new it was going to good use. But it is going to the federal government who has a history of spending foolishly. And if the revenues made any significant impact on the deficit at all they would support it. But they don’t. The projected revenues are so insignificant that it’s not even worth all the air time it has been getting. Come on Obama, if you really want to cut the deficit give us a real plan.

          3. Cairndance October 23, 2012

            Clinton tax rates were 3% higher and we had a surplus when GWB took over!
            GWB thought that was rediculous, so he sent everyone a refund check!
            Why are you fighting 3%?

          4. Tom_D44 October 23, 2012

            Sorry Cairn, Clinton already had a booming economy and he got an extra little bonus from social security which was taking in more than it was paying out at the time. So Clinton used the social security surplus to get to his $234 billion dollar budget surplus. A stroke of luck for him as he actually never cut spending while he was in office. So as not to play favorites, GW decided not to include the wars in his budgets which helped make his numbers better so they are all liars in my opinion – or shall I say mis-leaders.

            But I have no problems with the concept of having the rich pay a little more, and like I said, most wealthy people I know don’t really have a problem with it either. What I have a problem with is Obama running around the country selling this tax increase to the American people as if it is actually a solution to our problems. We are already $16 trillion in hole and scheduled to be another trillion in at the end of next year. What is $90 billion going to do? Absolutely nothing. Obama is just kicking the can down the road to keep his power for another 4 years. And if he really cared about the little people of this country like he says, he would have started addressing this debt and deficit issue immediately – or started preparing the American people for the circumstances of not getting it under control. Unfortunately that is not popular to talk about on pop culture TV shows – the only thing he books himself on lately in order to avoid the tough questions.

          5. grammyjill October 23, 2012

            The tax increase on the wealthy is supose to help with the infrastructure bill to put millions back to work which makes alot more tax payers, which makes more revenew, which lowers the deficit. It’s kinda round about but it does get to both jobs and lowering the deficit. So, that’s why we’d like the wealthy to pay their fair share.

          6. montanabill October 24, 2012

            No, they do not create jobs and without available jobs, even a very well educated person can be out of work. That’s stating the obvious, isn’t it. Lots of examples out there. But once business feels free to invest and expand again, lots of well educated people will be needed.

            Obama talks about, “a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. On top of the $1 trillion in spending we’ve already cut, I’d ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan, let’s apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation-building right here at home.” A couple problems with this claim. For starters, he has not actually cut spending by $1 trillion already. Instead, he agreed last summer to a debt ceiling deal that led to a “sequestration” process which lets future spending increase a little more slowly than previously planned over the next decade. But over that period, spending still goes up. Secondly, the war is being paid for with borrowed money. There is no ‘rest’ when the war ceases to pay down our debt unless he intends to pay down our debt with borrowed money.
            It is very much like his claims that new taxes on the rich will pay down the deficit, the debt and buy lots of new stuff.

            Federal spending totaled $3.6 trillion in fiscal 2011, the period that ended Sept. 30, 2011, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. This fiscal year, which ends Sunday, total spending is expected to decline to $3.56 trillion, and decline further to $3.554 trillion next year. Those two brief cuts total just $49 billion over the two years – well short of $1 trillion. And after that, spending starts to rise again, and by 2015 should again top the 2011 figure. By the end of the 10-year period in 2021, the CBO projects federal spending of $5.5 trillion.

    4. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

      YEAHHAAWWW MONTANABILL……. GET REAL….have you ever served in the Military?
      Do you know the capabilities of our NAVY…..I know ROMNEY doesn’t, being the hypocritical draft dodger that he is he has avoided the subject. Our carriers are FLOATING CITIES, with super WARRING capablities. They cannot be everywhere at once though. I know your candidate lost the debate last night, now go cry in your beer elsewhere. I am sure there are plenty of places in the WEB world that will go along with you on this. Start with the FOX sites…….

      1. montanabill October 23, 2012

        Our carriers are indeed impressive. However, there are only 11 of them. That was Romney’s point. We can’t cover the world with 11 carriers. It is especially disconcerting that there was not one close to one of the known trouble spots with a reported history of growing terrorism, where they had asked for additional security. The battle went on for 6 hours. Surely we should have had a carrier with helicopters within that range.

        1. old_blu October 23, 2012

          So do you think we are the guardians of the world?

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            That is a left field comment. We should be guardians of the people we put in harm’s way.

          2. neece00 October 23, 2012

            There is a big difference in putting someone harms way and protecting someone that is in harms way.

          3. montanabill October 23, 2012

            Are you saying we shouldn’t try to protect those we put in harm’s way?

          4. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

            We should do everything within our power which is why I couldn’t understand why my son was serving in Iraq without the necessary things to insure/enhance his safe keeping, like bullet proof vest that actually were bullet proof and reinforced transport vehicles better suited to withstand IUD explosions. I won’t go into all of the waste, greed and profiteering that took place by those on your side of the isle primarily, but I am sure that there were those on the other side who profited as well, while my son and 25 other members of my family put their lives in harms way.

          5. montanabill October 23, 2012

            I understand and fully agree with your disgust. It doesn’t stop with companies profiteering from government contracts, it also goes to military people who are tasked with defining and testing material. I was involved in aerospace contracting for a few years of my career and am fully familiar with the sometimes all too cozy relationships between military personnel and contractors. I won’t go into my set of horror stories here, but getting unfit or defective material happens all too often and it isn’t just the contractors who are to blame.

          6. puzzled21 October 23, 2012


          7. Regina Lighteard October 24, 2012

            So, Bill, lets start being guardians, here in America because there are alot of our American citizens in harm’s way and dying at the hands of derranged gun owners.

          8. montanabill October 24, 2012

            That’s about 12,129 compared to 32,885 at the hands of deranged automobile drivers. We have lots of laws on gun ownership. But like immigration laws, they are selectively enforced.

          9. Regina Lighteard October 25, 2012

            Bill, clearly you have married yourself to a host of issues, here in America and abroad. It’s obvious you are gravely concerned and that’s understandable. In your reply to me, you gave statistics comparison of lives lost to deranged gunowners and auto drivers, but why did you throw in immigrations laws. Are you implying that American citizens are in harm’s way because of immigrants?

          10. montanabill October 25, 2012

            I didn’t have that intention, but the answer is yes. Gangs that freely flow over the border like MS13 are a danger to U.S. citizens. However, my original point was that we have lots laws on the books that are not being enforced. We also have lots of things that kill far more people than guns. One of the statistics you never see are how many people are able to save themselves from harm because they did have a gun. If the laws on the books, especially those intended to prevent criminals or unstable people from acquiring guns were enforced, the death toll would go way down.

          11. Regina Lighteard October 25, 2012

            Bill you are really subtle and sneaky. I realize if I continue in conversation with you, it will be never ending and there will be one issue after another. Instead of using your intellect and intelligence on the negatives, focus on the positive and put forth solutions. Because the world care very little about what a man or woman know; it is what a man or woman is able to do that counts.

          12. montanabill October 25, 2012

            Let me ask you for the solution. Recently, there have been a number of shootings where a man with a court restraining order on him, killed the person who wanted him out of their life. It happened that these cases involved a gun. In at least one case, that person was not allowed to have a gun. What do you think could have prevented these people from carrying out their anger?

          13. karinursula October 23, 2012

            Thank you old blue, We cannot go into every country that has problems.

        2. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

          Sorry …. one of the things our Carriers have yet to develop is WARP Speed. Give us time…..don’t underestimate American ingenuity.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            You always like to skirt the issue. My point was that we should have posted a ship carrying helicopters and Marines in the Gulf of Sirte to protect our people in either Tripoli or Benghazi. That would put them no more than about a hour away from either site.

          2. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

            You know what they say….”Hindsight is 2020.” If G.W. and his girlfriend, Condi Rice, had paid attention to reports they would have kicked Al Queda off the hijacked airplanes before they boarded. Instead of Bush sitting around his Ranch chainsawing his Mesquite Trees, to look tough. Or as my Drill Instructor used to say…”IF, if… If flies had .45’s frogs wouldn’t F**K with ’em !” We have an ample supply of the greatest carriers, this world has ever known, to defend ourselves. But we are not the WORLD POLICE. And if we knee jerk reacted to that event and brought in our Blackhawks or Cobras or whatever we are flying these days with massive GUN POWER. By Rules of Engagement we would have levelled the street. And the next day we would be at war. Instead the next day, thousands came out to demonstrate this was an abhorrant act of terrorism by Al Queda, and not the Lybian civilian population. There are stacks of Al Queda Bodies to PROVE Justice will be served by President Obama. Sadly 4 Americans are dead, and someone will pay. But WHO …….I say again……WHO is paying for the deaths of so many good American men and women who died in IRAQ for non-existant WMD’s? FYI…..that number is a lot higher than 4.

          3. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

            well said my friend and Semper Fi!

          4. old_blu October 23, 2012

            Exactly, and well said.

          5. montanabill October 24, 2012

            I’m sure, that like many of today’s critics, that you knew full well that there were no WMD’s before we went in. It is also true that it has been proven that Bush knew there were no WMD’s. Oh, it hasn’t?

        3. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

          I just have to ask…yes I know we are in a global economy and we need to trade everything with everyone including ideas and idologies but since when did it become our job to cover the globe with a constant military presence? You see we are the only ones who believe this…china chooses economics russia chooses crime bosses…we are the only ones who choose GIANT HEAPING PILES OF EXTRA POLICE FORCE AKA MILITARY. Why should we have a carrier within two hours of every hot spot? There is a inheirant danger to diplomatic service and it is exaserbated by our constant show of force it is like showing up to a poker game sitting down with the other players and then making sure they notice your armed gaurd befor you deal the first hand…how comfortable are they now??

          1. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Probably not comfortable enough to pull a gun on you.

      2. neece00 October 23, 2012

        love the picture

    5. DemGary October 23, 2012

      Bill, are you suggesting we should have bombed our own consulate? That would have been about our only option from an aircraft carrier. I don’t see what good an aircraft carrier would have done in this situation. Like the president said, “the nature of our military’s changed”. What would you have done differently?

      1. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

        Bill would have found a way to cheat embassy security out of a few more pennies so that he could oil his body and roll around in them — he’s freaky that way, aren’t you Bill? GOP’s $400 million cut to embassy security wasn’t enough for old Bill, no sir!

      2. montanabill October 23, 2012

        I am not suggesting that. A carrier like the U.S.S. Boxer is a helicopter ship. I would also suspect that most carriers have at least one helicopter on board.
        I would certainly keep resources close to known trouble spots, especially in an area where an Ambassador has requested additional security. A few, well armed Marines might have made a world of difference.

        1. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

          Sure, Bill…let’s examine your ‘Romney’ plan:

          1. Attack begins.
          2. At least a couple of hours pass amid the confusion.
          3. Military commanders receive the news.
          4. President Romney awakened during his favorite dream of winning Olympic dressage event.
          5. 15 minutes pass while Romney drinks his milk to wake up.
          6. President Romney takes decisive action, calling 411 for information as to who is the current leader in Libya.
          7. President Romney mistakenly calls the number of a goat herder in Awbari.
          8. Romney has delightful conversation explaining the virtues of dressage to a confused Libyan goat herder.
          9. Romney finally reaches Libyan provincial authorities and asks their permission to counterattack.
          10. Romney assembles foreign policy team to engage focus group.
          11. Sleepy focus group agrees that it is politically viable.
          12. Romney orders national security team to prepare plans.
          13. Former Bush administration/Romney national security team readies plans.
          14. Romney orders the invasion of Australia.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            So when an answer hits the mark, you move to ridicule. You could work for Axlerod.

          2. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

            I often ridicule the ridiculous — it’s just how I roll. Sorry.

        2. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

          No comment about the cut in Embassy security funds?

          1. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Commented multiple times. Embassy security funds had been raised significantly in past few years to $1.2 billion. The Republicans requested cuts of $330 million in exchange for other spending of borrowed money the Democrats wanted to do. They compromised on $270 million. It has absolutely no effect on the Libyan situation.

          2. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            Less money in the budget would have some effect on service provided.

          3. montanabill October 24, 2012

            According to the State Dept., it did not.

          4. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            Okay they should know

        3. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

          But lets go back a bit …we didn’t intercede…right or wrong…4 people died definately wrong and tragic, but the next day lybians were in the streets pulling those assholes out of our consulate. Thousands of BOOTS ON THE GROUND are now under ground and we have afgan police shooting american soldiers…4 dead and lybia is fighting FOR us…thousands dead and Afgans are shooting us with our own guns….I’m not saying it’s not a tragedy but how we handle our response to the lybian response, might actually make a permanent difference in the region. I believe ideally we capture these people and have them tried and punished according to international law. Have real live lybians testify against them and participate in their own justice system…something like that would be a real step forward.

          I just don’t think having marines come flying in and stopm a big mud hole in the middle of the crowd would allow us to accomplish this.

          1. montanabill October 24, 2012

            We would all like to see a true democracy, rule of law and peaceful citizens in Libya. It is exactly the same vision Bush had for Iraq. Sometimes tribal societies simply don’t see things the same way we do. That Consulate was American territory. If we won’t defend it, who will in a basically lawless country? We put our faith in the locals without a backup plan.

    6. chirl2 October 23, 2012

      So now you know more than the military leaders. Obama was talking about their recommendations. Have you heard the results of the REPUBLICAN investigation regarding the Libya incident? If you really have been listening to Romney over the last couple of years I wouldn’t have to tell you he changes his message to fit the audience. He has no consistent policy because he knows the Bush team will tell him what to do.

      1. montanabill October 23, 2012

        How does the obvious escape you?

        There are no results from the Congressional investigation because it isn’t complete.

        Can you show me a politician who doesn’t fit their message to their audience?

        Can you provide any link between the Romney team and the Bush administration?

        1. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

          Ask and ye shall receive:

          1. Dan Senor, former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq under George Bush.
          2. Michael Hayden, CIA Director under George Bush (who nominated him in 2006).
          3. Richard Williamson, Bush’s special envoy to Sudan and ambassador to the UN Security council.

          You were saying?

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            Excellent. And I would hope that he would utilize Condoleeza Rice, as well.
            I wanted to see if you came up with the Cheney/Rumsfield junk that others on the left have posited.

    7. TZToronto October 23, 2012

      Hmmm. Let’s see. So you want some planes from an aircraft carrier to bomb and strafe some people in the street. Yes, I’m sure they’d be able to single out the bad guys while not harming the innocent bystanders. Look, as bad as the attack in Benghazi was, and I’m not trying to minimize the seriousness of it, the toll of human lives was less than in some recent mass shootings in the United States. Would bombing and strafing to kill the shooters in these mass killings have been appropriate? Would it be worth killing all of the shooter’s potential targets just to stop the shooter? Sad to say, foreign service postings are not all in the UK, Germany, France, Portugal, and Canada. Sometimes they are in dangerous places. Libya and Egypt these days can dangerous places, but to start killing thousands of innocents (OK and the bad guys, too) is a sure way to alienate the people we want to help. I’m sure there are a lot of Iraqis who used to like the USA but now hate America for destroying their lives and killing their husbands, wives, children, and friends. The bottom line is that local authorities are responsible for the protection of embassies and consulates. I live in Toronto, and any time there’s a demonstration at the U.S. Consulate, who’s there to protect it? The U.S. Marines? Nope, it’s the Toronto police.

      1. Tom_D44 October 23, 2012

        Isn’t collateral damage part of what happens in all of these drone strikes? Befor you twist your answer to suit your case let me answer for you…….Yes. We don’t seem to have a problem with that. In fact Obama was pretty proud of that last night. We chastized the Bush administration for waterboarding specific detainees with known associations to terrorists and with no collateral consequences, but when we blow up innocent women and children who are in the vacinity of an Al Qaida target the media and liberal world is silent.

        Where were those drones for the 6 hours in Benghazi?

      2. montanabill October 23, 2012

        Another responder who misses the obvious. We also have these things called ‘helicopters’ and Marines. Those resources should have been posted in the Gulf of Sirte, minutes away from either Tripoli or Benghazi, especially after the State Department had received requests for additional security.

        Your last statement is true, but there are just some places where it is prudent not to depend on the locals.

        1. TZToronto October 23, 2012

          You are missing the point. You want to U.S. to be the world’s bully. That’s what Dubya and his puppet-masters were in Iraq. You don’t go in and start killing people you can’t identify as terrorists simply because you think some of them might be involved. That’s called murder, otherwise known as “collateral damage.” If your family members had been killed by “collateral damage,” how would you feel? Fortunately, your family members have probably not been killed by “collateral damage,” so you probably don’t know how you’d feel. But I’m sure the “collateral damage” would make you feel less than warm toward those who did it. You must look at the bigger picture. If the U.S. wants Libya–right in the middle of North Africa and right next to Egypt which is right next to Israel–to cooperate with the U.S. in the future, the U.S. can’t simply start dropping bombs on our prospective friends or shooting their innocent people. We know what Libyan enemies do. They put explosive in airplanes. Do you want more of that? Go ahead, be a jingoist. When Libya become the next terrorist state, I’ll know whom to blame–montanabill.

          1. montanabill October 24, 2012

            So, in your world, any marines stationed or airlifted to the embassy would have to ask those shooting at them if they were ‘innocents”? And we have no right to protect our people on our property because we might cause collateral damage? I’ll bet our foreign service people feel safer already.

          2. TZToronto October 24, 2012

            Not exactly. Marines are there to protect U.S. territory, not to kill people not on U.S. territory. Technically, once the bad guys are on U.S. soil (i.e., the Consulate grounds), they’re fair game. In practice, lethal force against intruders (attackers) is rarely used. It is the job of local authorities to keep attackers away. In this case, they didn’t do their job–if there were even local authorities available. From what I’ve heard, the Libyan people are grateful for American assistance in getting rid of Ghaddafi. You would turn them against the U.S. by allowing Marine guards to kill innocent civilians. . . . That’s worked really well in Iraq.

          3. montanabill October 24, 2012

            There is a small difference between intruders and armed attackers. There were locals assigned to guard the Consulate, but surprise, they couldn’t be depended on. I would put some trust in the Brits, French, Germans or Canadians, but not so much in places like Iraq, Egypt, Libya. Seems like the reasonable thing to do.
            Many in Iraq were grateful we got rid of Saddam, but tribal societies don’t operate like we would like. There were no innocent civilians on the Consulate grounds or carrying weapons.

        2. johninPCFL October 23, 2012

          In foreign deployments, marines and other security personnel receive specific instructions as to their conduct. Among them are the restrictions on use of force. They are not allowed to aim or fire unless fired upon, and then only under an officer’s direct orders (or standing orders.)

          While not debasing your real concerns for the safety of the ambassador, in your scenario, the marine detachment would have become the primary target, the ambassador would likely have still died, but so would a half-dozen marines. The only way this works out “better” is if the first reports (of a mob action) were true.

          1. montanabill October 24, 2012

            I think the videos clearly show the consulate being fired on.
            So, in your world, it is better for an Ambassador and a few lightly armed security people to die than to try to save them?
            BTW, a half-dozen is your number, not mine and I probably have a little more faith in a half-dozen, well armed, marines.

          2. johninPCFL October 24, 2012

            A marine detachment is four to six men depending on the mission. For a typical Consulate deployment, I’d expect a six man team.

            “So in your world…” is your interpretation. What I said clearly was that adding marines to the mix would likely not have changed the outcome. An attack by a dozen highly armed militants (equiped with RPGs) would have overwhelmed the lightly fotified, temporary facility in every locale but Hollywood. So, yes, six marines and the four Consulate employees would have died.

          3. montanabill October 24, 2012

            So you believe that if we had a Navy/Marine unit capable of reaching Benghazi within an hour, they would have sent 6 Marines when hearing of the attack?
            How about that, jarhead? Agree with him?

          4. johninPCFL October 24, 2012

            No, dense one. Had they gotten a marine detachment as a security detail when they asked earlier for the unit in Tripoli, they would have received a six-man team.

            When the six-man team relocated from Tripoli to the un-reinforced, unsecured, temporary, consulate facility in Benghazi, the marines would have used their light weapons against the RPG- and AK47-equipped attackers and been killed.

          5. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Maybe they would have or maybe not. I’d like a real Marine to weigh in on this one.

          6. johninPCFL October 24, 2012

            Arnie and Sly are movie heros. If you’ve got those guys on your team, you don’t need aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, or atomic weapons.

            Unfortunately, in the real world the real marines, like those in Beirut in 1983, die just like other mortals. Six men with light duty weapons (and only one with a sidearm) would have become the principal targets of the assassins who were wielding RPGs and AK47s. Yes, some of the attackers would have been killed instead of none. And ten Americans instead of four would have joined them.

          7. montanabill October 24, 2012

            I really wouldn’t expect marines with protection duty in a place like Libya to be lightly armed. We have been significantly out manned in both Afghanistan and Iraq by men armed with RPG’s and AK’s. Training and discipline make a world of difference.

          8. johninPCFL October 24, 2012

            As do air power. And artillery. None of which was available to our consulate in Libya.

            Our embassy agreements with the host countries specify what arms our security detachments may carry. They are typically not combat arms. Since consulate security is in the purview of the host country, there may be even more stringent limitations of what arms our personnel may carry. In any case, only officers carry sidearms, which would have been the most useful weapons to repel an invading group without inflicting huge amounts of collateral damage.

            The standard security weapon is the 5.56mm M249 automatic or the .223 cal M4. Both are short range weapons designed for devastating, debilitating wounds, not necessarily to kill outright. The AK47 is equivalent to the old .30 cal M1, is designed for close to medium range combat action, and the round is designed to kill outright. The timelag from the first outbreak of violence during the demonstrations may have allowed a marine unit to don armor, but the AK is still wickedly lethal in leg and upper arm hits. Rules of engagement would likely have limited the amount of return fire our folks could have sent back, given the crowd around the compound (again, the sidearm is the better choice.)

            I suspect you’re going for the old Patton quote: “untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets”. It is well to remember that they’ve been practicing too.

          9. montanabill October 25, 2012

            You keep talking about Libya as though that country might be as organized as a European nation. It has not created a stable central government nor created a stable military or police force. It is still very tribal and very lawless. It is totally unreasonable to expect them to provide quality security for consulates or embassies at this point.
            I am thoroughly familiar with arms. AK’s are indeed lethal, but they are also notoriously inaccurate, especially in the hands of the marginally trained who simply spray around hoping to hit something. It was also night, making accurate sighting of those weapons almost impossible.
            Marines arriving by helicopter would have been armoured and equipped with night vision and had covering fire.

          10. johninPCFL October 25, 2012

            I agree that Libya is complete chaos right now. What I keep saying is that embassy agreements have provisions in them that we accept when we sign them. Among those agreed provisions are the security provided by the host country for consulates. Under those agreements there are probably restrictions on what forces, and under what circumstances, we may bring our own “army” to a consulate. I doubt the ambassador would violate those agreements, even in complete chaos.

            WRT AKs, thus my comment on leg and upper arm injuries. Armor, even if worn, still leaves appendages open to lethal wounds, and appendage injury is more liekly during a spray-fire comfrontation (should any injury occur) BECAUSE the shooter is not aiming for center-of-mass. I’m not sure whether night-vision gear is standard issue to a security force (had they been assigned in Tripoli.)

            Covering fire doesn’t help when rules of engagement limit fire to identified targets and a mob of unarmed civilians is all around. Helicopters hovering over or landing in a zone covered by RPGs doesn’t seem like a good strategy to me. It seems like it adds more marine deaths to the body count. So, the marines land a mile or so away and fight their way to the consulate?

          11. montanabill October 25, 2012

            I guess we will just have to leave at me having more faith in our military capabilities and that if I were responsible, I would make sure our station personnel could feel safe.

          12. johninPCFL October 25, 2012

            I’m sure the ambassador felt safe or he wouldn’t have gone to Benghazi. Maybe think back to 1972. The Germans were responsible for the Olympic Games security, the Isreali athletes trusted them, and the Palestinians were threatening all kinds of mayhem. A determined force defied the Israeli army and the German defense forces to penetrate security attack the athletes at an unfortified location.

            I have ultimate confidence in our military, but I also recognize that they require time to spin up, and a few hours to marshall resources to repel an invasion by unknown quantities of unknown forces with unknown weaponry is not enough. If it were, we wouldn’t have lost 241 marines in Beirut in 1983, right? Because otherwise Reagan meets all the criteria you attribute to the president.

          13. montanabill October 26, 2012

            Feeling safe in not what the Ambassador said in his messages to the State Dept. or in his diary.
            Playing CYA after the attack by the administration would not be necessary if they didn’t feel that they had messed up.

      3. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

        10,000 civilians were killed in the bombing of Baghdad.

    8. awakenaustin October 23, 2012

      Wow and if we had 150 aircraft carrier strike groups then we could launch an air attack on every single country in the world with a half-hours notice. Of course, we may have to raise your taxes to pay for them, the support craft, and the sailors to man the ships and fly the planes. But then for you deficits don’t matter when it comes to spending on the military. (With the exception of veterans – we have to be real careful to limit that spending. It is so much like spending for social needs. Talking about supporting veterans is so much less costly than actually doing it.) Deficits and spending is only a problem when we are spending it on education, health, infrastructure and the public welfare.
      Carrier strike groups as a rule don’t carry with ground combat forces. The only major thing they could bring to the conflict would be airpower. All they could do is drop bombs on people. It is easy to do, but it helps to know where to drop them. Usually that would require some working knowledge of where the good guys are and where the bad guys are. Flying along at a couple of hundred miles per hour it is some times hard to make those distinctions. Now, I guess if you think we should just drop bombs on everything that moves, it doesn’t matter where the good guys are and where the bad guys are.
      Having made the point I am going to stop criticizing your harebrained notion now. You understand, that you are required to come up with this nonsense because you can’t let anything that the President does or does not do pass without pointing out why it was wrong. I am sure I am being unfair. You were of course all over President Bush about 9/11. Oops, I forgot for a moment, that wasn’t because of failures on Presidnet Bush’s watch, it was President Clinton’s fault.

      1. montanabill October 23, 2012

        Nice straw man.

        1. awakenaustin October 23, 2012

          It was your and his example of Carrier Strike Groups, not mine. If it was a straw man you built it. I just set it on fire.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            Then a simple question. You are the President. You know that Libya is a very unstable and volatile country with a growing insurgency. You have an Ambassador who has asked for additional security several times, warning of danger. You have the command of our military forces. You know al qaeda likes to strike on 9/11.
            Is campaigning more important to you than paying close attention to details?

          2. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

            Sure, Bill…let’s examine your ‘Romney’ plan:

            1. Attack begins.
            2. At least a couple of hours pass amid the confusion.
            3. Military commanders receive the news.
            4. President Romney awakened during his favorite dream of winning Olympic dressage event.
            5. 15 minutes pass while Romney drinks his milk to wake up.
            6. President Romney takes decisive action, calling 411 for information as to who is the current leader in Libya.
            7. President Romney mistakenly calls the number of a goat herder in Awbari.
            8. Romney has delightful conversation explaining the virtues of dressage to a confused Libyan goat herder.
            9. Romney finally reaches Libyan provincial authorities and asks their permission to counterattack.
            10. Romney assembles foreign policy team to engage focus group.
            11. Sleepy focus group agrees that it is politically viable.
            12. Romney orders national security team to prepare plans.
            13. Former Bush administration/Romney national security team readies plans.
            14. Romney orders the invasion of Australia.

          3. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

            In the TRADITION of Bush/Cheney…..LOVE IT!

          4. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

            That is the purpose of surrounding myself with capable competent advisers, my secretary of state was both. Of course the final decision and responsibility rest with the President although I may not always have every piece of information all the time, hence caution.

          5. montanabill October 23, 2012

            That is why you have a daily, morning security briefing. You simply cannot get all the information you need if you rely on written reports. Discussion will bring out material not in the reports and you can ask questions to be sure you fully understand the reports. When I heard that the President was skipping those meetings, I wasn’t shocked, because I knew that since he had never been a businessman in charge of a company, he hadn’t learned the discipline.
            And sometimes, you simply have to think for yourself. It is what you do if you are in charge.
            The Libya situation had red flags all over it. Not only were we not prepared for such an eventually, our slow response has PYA all over it.

          6. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

            Again, I wont go back to the foreign policy of the previous administration and all of the documented mishaps etc. We are not privileged to know the time frame or amount of information or how it flows. I believe you said you are vet. like myself. So I am sure that you know when you are in a leadership role and all hell seems to be breaking lose around you you don’t always make the best/right decision initially.

          7. montanabill October 24, 2012

            I am not a vet. I was too young for Korea and too old for Viet Nam. But I have been in leadership positions in various small, medium and large companies and organizations for many years. Not even close to having some one shooting at me, except for a hunting incident when I was younger. Having to make a payroll in tough times can be stressful but certainly not life threatening.

          8. puzzled21 October 24, 2012

            Okay, just trying to point out the variables involved in these type of issues

          9. awakenaustin October 23, 2012

            No. And you can cite no evidence to support your presumed position that the President thinks campaigning is more important than paying attention to details.
            Let us pretend for a moment that you know something about governing, that you know something about large organizations (be they governmental or private) and how they operate and you know something diplomatic missions. No one operates with perfect knowledge ahead of, during or after the fact. The decisions regarding the request for additional security were not made directly to the Secretary or her immediate staff or the White House or the President or his immediate staff. The requests went through channels and the questions were answered in ordinary and muddled way such questions are always answered, with one eye on the cost and the other on security assessments. (The Humvees we sent into the Iraq war in the beginning are a great example of big organization retrospectively obviously stupid ideas. If we had been prescient, American soldiers and Marines would not have spent months driving around in those death traps). After the fact, a lot of things become obvious. (Such as the President’s mistaken belief that Republicans actually wanted to help and were open to compromise and negotiation concerning the problems facing the nation.) The leaders of large organizations always bear ultimate responsibility for what occurs under their watch. It is, however, one thing to say the responsibility for not preventing an event ultimately lies in a particular place and quite another to actually blame an event’s occurrence on that person while ignoring how the world actually operates. (This is reminiscent of blaming a murder victim’s parents for not doing enough to protect him or her, rather than blaming the actual responsible party – the murderer.) President Bush was not responsible for 9/11 and should not be blamed for not preventing it (despite what my liberal friends say). The very same can be said in this case regarding President Obama. It was a tragedy. We should try to learn from our mistakes so that we might prevent such occurrences in the future if we can. The long term interests of this nation aren’t served by trying to make political capital from such events. You have no real interest in actually understanding what occurred, you are just interested in finding reasons to assign blame. Every mistake you ascribe to him, and every success you say is someone else’s.

          10. montanabill October 24, 2012

            I do know a little something about large organizations so I’m very familiar with hiding bad news from the boss and CYA.
            No one can say that the Ambassador might not have been killed on 9/11 under any circumstance, but it was the anniversary of 9/11, a day terrorists like to try to commemorate. The lack of stability and unrest was well known. The Ambassador had requested more protection. One can only surmise that this information might have been available at one of the daily security briefings the President ducked. It would have certainly been prudent of the President to attend those meetings and ask the requisite questions about the high risks spots where we have people posted.
            After it happened, the President gave a quick and general comment in the Rose Garden and then headed off to another campaign event. Was his mind of getting to the bottom of the attack or the campaign stops, who to greet, who to acknowledge, what to say? The emails and timeline clearly show a lot of questionable acts.
            It was the President who turned this into a political event. All he had to do initially was tell us he didn’t have all the facts and assure us that the people responsible would be brought to justice and that any mistakes within his administration would be made public and, if needed, appropriate action taken. But that wasn’t the case, was it?

          11. awakenaustin October 24, 2012

            You are absolutely wrong about who made this a political event. Is it your expectation that had the President come into the Rose Garden the following day and said what you say he should have said that this event would have been ignored by the GOP and Mitt Romney for its potential to embarrass the administration? If it is, then you are completely delusional. The other choice would have been to say nothing. That would have gone over well. “One can only surmise”? Seems like there is a whole bunch of surmising going on. Surmise is a fancy word for guess. One can only surmise that Mitt Romney knows he is prevaricating when he says he has a secret five point plan. Prevaricating is a fancy word for lying.
            I have seen the video of the President’s statement and I have read the text. He very clearly is not making this a political event. This is mostly in the form of a memorial to those who lost their lives. It has its “we a great nation” moments, all Libyans aren’t bad guys, without saying it directly- all Moslems aren’t bad guys and we are going to get justice on this. It says it was an act of terror and it does not make any claim that this was just an anti-film demonstration gone bad and it does not say anything about who perpetrated the attack. It was never intended as a fact based rendition of the events. Maybe the President made the mistake of thinking Republicans loved their country more than they relish the idea of defeating him in November. Maybe he thought it is more appropriate to appreciate the sacrifice who died and deal with the specifics later. There is no statement he could have made that you would not find fault with. There is no statement he could have made that you would not have parsed looking for an angle from which to criticize him. Democrats don’t do the crap you guys do and the reason is we are just better “Real Americans” than you are. When someone attacks the nation we swing into line. Years later we get rewarded for our patriotism by being told we can’t say it was a mistake because we gave the President at the time the benefit of the doubt. Of course at the time of the damn war you were busy impugning the integrity and patriotism of anyone with the temerity to criticize it or question its necessity in any way. There are simply no limits to your hypocrisy or your willingness to make up alternative realities. In your desire for power there is no sewer so foul you won’t go swimming in it.

          12. montanabill October 24, 2012

            See the timeline of statements CNN published today (FOX has also put together one). See also the emails discovered by Reuters.

          13. awakenaustin October 24, 2012

            I have looked at the timelines. So what? There is no there there. There is no smoking gun. This comes down to people complaining this wasn’t clearly labeled a terrorist attack from the very beginning, because there was some info that said it was. Since that info turned out to be correct it was the only info that should have or could have been correct. The time line has nothing to do with the content, intent and purpose of the Rose Garden statement. More than anything it is a memorial and clearly never intended to be a factual recounting of the information the Administration may have had or not had at that time. The early CIA reports said spontaneous and other sources said organized attack. Sitting here after in the aroma of perfect aftermath info you pick and chose the reports and information to believe because you and others now know what happened. You can do the very same thing with 9/11. How could anyone have failed to see that coming? How could anyone initially been unsure of what was going on? This is the event postmortem where everyone who wasn’t there is correct about what occurred, but the opinion of the guy who was there is totally discounted. You know more than anyone about what occurred and you weren’t even in the info pipeline or present at the discussions of this info. It boils down to this, whether you understand how people actually operate and think, how information in the pipeline is contradictory and incomplete, and whether you automatically assume every inconsistency is evidence of malevolence. But in any case you make sure you try to turn this into a national crisis on par with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, because that fits your “agenda.”

          14. montanabill October 24, 2012

            That is complete denial. The Rose Garden statement was part of the numerous conflicting statements. The emails and 60 minutes interview of Obama clearly show that the President was fully informed that it was a terrorist attack from an al qaeda related group and he knew it immediately. He had military assets activated and moving but not well coordinated. What we don’t know is the reason for the attempted obfuscation, though we have a pretty good idea. We also don’t know why the President won’t come out and make a statement or hold a press conference. I’m sure he doesn’t want a press conference because he could be asked those pesky questions about his comments or Clinton, Carney and Rice’s statements.

          15. awakenaustin October 24, 2012

            The obfuscation is in your imagination. The military assets activation is SOP in any situation where there is no clear ability of the locals to provide security and fluid situations such as this. We have done that many times for less reason than this. Maybe he can hold a press conference and produce his birth certificate and his academic records also. I think he should have a press conference every time you and Fox News think he should. Then you could go on ad nauseum about how there must be something going on because he held a news conference. Keep flogging that dead horse. Conspiracy theorist always know what is going on, even when nothing is.

          16. montanabill October 25, 2012

            I think you can look for the media to keep asking pesky questions. This is going to look like Dancing With The Administration.

          17. awakenaustin October 25, 2012

            I am not worried about them asking questions. It is their job. I think you are wrong about the facts and I think time will prove you wrong.

          18. montanabill October 25, 2012

            Note that the administration has taken steps to see that no formal investigation will occur until after the election.

          19. awakenaustin October 26, 2012

            They don’t need to the House and Fox are on the job. I am sure they will do their usual fair and unbiased work in this case, just as they have in so much. Civics Lesson: The President cannot prevent a formal investigation by Congress. He can refuse to cooperate with it, but he can’t avoid it. I look forward to it happily. Tell those slack jaws in the Republican majority in the House to get busy. Wait, they already have. Maybe they are too busy campaigning to give it their full attention. I am sure it will be just as enlightening as the Whitewater investigation. There will be no there there when it is over. Do you ever pass on any kind of conspiratorial thoughts or do you just swallow all of them whole?

          20. grammyjill October 23, 2012

            The President and Hillary both went to congress and asked for money for more security. Congress gave their usual anwswer, NO. I got that from the republican that was in charge of that commity.

          21. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Not exactly true. The budget for foreign service has been raised significantly the past few years to $1.2 billion. In exchange for more spending in other areas requested by the Democrats, the Republicans asked for a $330 million cut to that budget. In negotiations, the cut was reduced to $270 million. It had absolutely no effect on the Libya situation.

      2. liestopper October 23, 2012

        The notion that Romney wants government out of private sector and then wants the government to spend 2 trillion on contracts for building ships is still putting government on the private sector.

    9. Fairways1 October 23, 2012

      Have you ever been on an aircraft carrier? I have! First of all we don’t send Aircraft Carriers alone to foreign areas, we send battle groups. Years ago it was common to have Battle Groups steaming in volatile areas for protection. Today we have long range missiles and Drones that can be deployed from distant locations. This gives us the ability to do damage without putting our ships in danger. On the other hand other countries and not all our bed partners also have long range missiles that could target a Battle Group from a great distance and take out that Aircraft Carrier that you feel should be there. Remember the USS Cole! Didn’t take much to damage that. Maybe this is why we shouldn’t build more ships! It’s a different Century and Obama realizes this.

      1. montanabill October 23, 2012

        I’m not sure what century Obama thinks this is. Long range missiles and drones can never take the place of boots on the ground for some missions. I find it highly unlikely that a battle group posted near Tripoli / Benghazi (Gulf of Sirte) would not have helicopters and Marines that could have arrived in minutes. This is a known trouble spot that had asked for more security. Nor do I think such a group would have been in any danger from Libya.

        1. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

          Montana, and since you believe in sending the cream of the crop out to die and be maimed, I am sure you will enlist and insist on being one of those boots on the ground. Of course, you will expect your sons and daughters to do the same.

          1. old_blu October 23, 2012

            Well said Maggie, we don’t need anothere war, and why would Romney want more millitary when they don’t want it, unless he has another plan?

          2. montanabill October 23, 2012

            You are engaged in issue avoidance now, Maggie.

          3. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

            Hey Bill, avoid this: How many extra Marines could we have sent to Benghazi with the $400 million that the GOP cut out of the embassy security budget?

          4. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

            You were the one who said we needed boots on the ground. Answer me truthfully, are any of those boots going to be yours or your kids?

          5. montanabill October 24, 2012

            How about my grandkids when they get old enough? Probably.

          6. neece00 October 23, 2012

            I noticed he didn’t answer the question

          7. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

            I know who it would NEVER be…..a ROMNEY……Chickenhawk family that it is.

        2. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

          Ah yes, and that $400 million that the GOP cut from the embassy security budget might have helped as well — right Bill? Or did you think such things were free?

          1. nurselaidoff October 23, 2012

            This was no budget issue. Testifying under oath, Charlene Lamb (deputy secretary of state) was directly asked if there was any budget constraint that led to a lack of security. Her answer was “no sir”. Charlene Lamb also reported in a message to the Democrats on the House Oversight committee, that they wanted to keep the security level artificially low”. This is due to a policy constraint, not a budget constraint. There was also 2.2 billion dollar discretionary fund which could have been used to beef up security.

          2. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Look up the real history of their budgets.

    10. ChristoD October 23, 2012

      Let me see if I have this right. Assuming that mistakes were made in Benghazi, and I clearly believe they were, are you implying that someone should ‘pay’ for those mistakes via a resignation or two or more ? Or are you implying that ‘lies’ were the order of the day and a ‘cover-up’ occured rather than the situation was complicated and folks are trying to sort things out before reaching an ionformed conclusion and possibly metering out punishment ? If you think that is the case montanabill, let me STRONGLY suggest that we step back and review the debacle that was the UNNECESSARY war in Iraq. Now THAT was a debacle. You know that war that was started because Iraq was SUPPOSEDLY involved in 9/11, thanks to Lying Dick Cheneys’ ‘shadow intelligence team’ trumped up charges. You know that war where more than 4,000 of our best soldiers were killed and countless thousands were maimed and that does not include the hundreds of thousnads of Iraqi’s killed and maimed ? I suggest, that if you want to meter out justice CORRECTLY, that Dick Cheney and his puppet President and Donald Rumsfeld, of total incompetance fame, be tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanpors and Deriliction of Duty and that the President should have been IMPEACHED. HOWEVER, therein lies the difference between, the scorched earth mindset of the Republican minds vs. the ‘we do not need to put the country through another trauma of an Impeachment of a President’, Democrats.

      As for the ‘debate’, it was anything but. What it was was a clear picture that Mitt Romney has yet to define who he is and what he stands for. What he has consistently shown is that he is very inconsistent and will say and do whatever he has to to win the election. Flip flopping does not do his behavior justice. What does is that he is the consummate used car salesman who will say whatever he has to to get the sale. The truth be damned.

      1. montanabill October 23, 2012

        I believe you are making a lot of assumptions about what I wrote. I also think you have created a straw horse and are beating it to death.

        1. karinursula October 23, 2012

          I don’t think so Bill, the 4000 soldiers are still dead.

      2. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

        A look at who profited from the evil trio who talked poor President Bush into attacking Iraq:
        1. Iraq had some of the biggest oil fields in the world.
        2. Dick Cheney was former CEO of Haliburton.
        a. His stock was held in abeyence until he was out of the government.
        b. Haliburton and Haliburton subsidiaries got no-bid contracts
        in Iraq.
        c. Haliburton subsidiary, Blackwater was found cheating the
        government by:
        . Being paid mileage for hauling supplies to the poor schmucks,
        whose lives were on the line, empty trucks were making
        the hundred mile trip when supplies were not being hauled.
        . The government was charged $100/load by Blackwater for
        doing the soldiers’ laundry.
        . Blackwater charged the US government $5.00/six pack for
        Coca Cola which the Coca Cola Company sends free to soldiers
        in battle.
        3. A million dollars, being sent for Iraqi relief, disappeared.

        So why did we really attack Iraq?

        1. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

          clarification: That was $100 for each soldier.

      3. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

        I LOVE IT !!!!!!

      4. Cairndance October 23, 2012

        CristoD, Very well stated.

    11. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

      I thought that you would be a little more even handed with last nights debate. Have you ever boxed or just had a physical confrontation? There is something that you can see in the other man’s eyes that let’s you know when fear takes over, that was Romney last night. He was sweating and losing his color all night. His answers were repetitive and he continued to insert his economic speal into every answer to every question. Romney literally endorsed every policy of the President while trying to distance himself from the Bush foreign policy debacle, even though his advisers are the same people. His total position on foreign policy was to attack the President’s leadership while endorsing every action taken. One thing we can be sure of if Romney gets elected, Latin Americas economy will boom.

      1. montanabill October 23, 2012

        At lot of Obama’s policies are just plain good sense. At issue is the implementation of those policies. The fear I saw last night was coming from the President, who used small attacks and denigration rather than that a forthright defense and explanation of his implementation. He was all about snarky attacks and platitudes. Platitudes are his specialty. It appears he is saying something, when he is really saying nothing at all. It was not Presidential or mark of a self-confident leader.
        Romney passed on the many opportunities he had to play the same game because it was simply not necessary in making his case.

        1. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

          Romney could have passed gas and not have been any less effective. It was clear that here he was out of his league, and he knew it. Obama had clear answers backed up by actual experience.

          It smarts, I know, but I promise that you will get over Romney’s defeat.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            Eyes of the behold, Whut. I heard no clear answers, just the usual platitudes with an occasional snarky comment. Based on his mode of operation, I wouldn’t hire him to manage a single area of one of my companies. He is still a egotistical neophyte.

          2. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

            Well, you must admit that white hoods CAN interfere with your hearing.

        2. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

          Again, I understand your position however, I still consider you a fair and open person. Can you at least acknowledge that there was some obstruction from your side of the isle. What case? Until he is ready to fully disclose his complete financial record and show the American people that he loves this country enough to pay his fair share of taxes, he has no case. Until he can explain why he has raided so many American companies sometimes using Federal monies to do so all the while twisting the tax code and using trust to allow him to hide his dirty deeds. Until he stands up just once and his actually honest with the American people . Until he admits that his plan for the auto industry was to allow them to file for bankurptcy without the benefit of government help on the back end leaving them at the mercy of his banking buddies and scavengers who could, just by the fact that they control so much wealth, get their avenue into taking over the auto industry. As they have with many other companies large and small.

          1. montanabill October 23, 2012

            There you go again. He has disclosed his taxes for the past two years, which is two years more than Roosevelt and other well-to-do people who became President ever did. His ‘fair share’? What is that? Is that an arbitrary number you make up? He is paying his legal share, which happens to be quite a big number in real dollars.
            Raided American companies using Federal monies? Get a better understanding of what Bain Capital does and where it gets its money and what it is in business to accomplish.
            Get the truth about Romney and the auto industry. GM did file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Romney wanted the legal actions to complete and THEN THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE for government backed loans. Obama simply bailed out the UAW without really saving GM. He did it by subverting the legal process.

          2. puzzled21 October 23, 2012

            No, there you go again. If he truly had nothing to hide we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. He would have released them. Did he take advantage of the tax amnesty in 09? His fair share may not necessarily be his legal share, not to mention there has been some implication that he may even have engaged in illegalities to accomplish his tax issues. Revealing his records would also clarify where his money is, and we know the majority of it is not in this country. He has already made if perfectly clear that he thinks it’s fair for him to pay 13/14% on his multiple millions and for me to pay 33% on my six figures. I don’t have the ability to use those loop holes available to him. Refresh yourself on Romney’s position on Blind Trust. As far as Bain I am very familiar with them and how they operate and what their primary goal is. They basically scavengers that profit from the miseries of others, the American way. I will tell the three associates of mine whose lively hoods depended on the auto industry as they are part of those feeder businesses to the auto industry, that the bailout was only for the UAW.

          3. montanabill October 24, 2012

            What happened when he released last return? He was immediately criticized for donating 20% of his income to charity, because the largest recipient was his church.
            We know he hasn’t done anything wrong with his taxes otherwise the IRS would be all over him. So exactly what is the point for the Democrats? It is to find something, anything, to use to continue the demonization of Romney so the focus isn’t on Obama’s record.
            I pay 33% also and taxes to six states, none of which I live in or visit. But I don’t begrudge what Romney pays or what he does with his money. It is his money and his business.
            Since you are calling Bain a scavenger company, I don’t believe you are at all familiar with private equity companies.
            Had GM been allowed to complete Chapter 11, they would have still been in business and they still would have received government backed new financing. The primary difference is that UAW got to keep their $50+/hr wages and GM’s obligation to their enormous pension requirements, while bond holders who originally lent money to GM, got their rights abrogated in violation of existing bankruptcy law. And GM is much less able to be competitive.

          4. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

            LOL……LMAO ROTFL….ha ha ha ha …..YOU CANNOT expect to shove that lie down anyones throat here. He wrote an OP ED piece….it said nothing of the kind. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! Ok BILL time for you to go. Apparently from all your experiences you have been lucky enough to become rich owning your own business and all. If you were actually open to serious debate and discussion that would be one thing; however, you pathetically want to convince those that are willing to fact check ROMNEY’s LYING machine, that they are wrong and need to vote REPUBLICAN. This election has become class warfare, as much as a war on Women’s rights, since Romney and Ryan made clear their objectives…..until they changed those objectives. wink, wink,,nod, nod.
            That being said……you should be ashamed of yourself , you greedy P.O.S. Fair share of taxes…is closer to the 28% I pay …and I don’t make a $million 13 % of Tens of $millions is still 13%. And where ARE THOSE TAX RETURNs of that LYING…..CHEATING…..GORDON GEKKO WORSHIPPING….SISSY WALKING Candidate?

          5. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Having a little problem with wealth envy there, jarhead?

          6. jarheadgene October 24, 2012

            Hahhhhaa OMG tried that one…..Let me explain something….you may have difficulty understanding this…..SO READ SLOWLY . There is WEALTHY and there is RICH. You may be WEALTHY, but I am RICH. For some money is how they measure people. For many who are wealthy, they falsely believe they truly earned it or deserve it. Truth is those that are wealthy have been luckily blessed or cursed with wealth based on inheritances or winnings or hard work and luck. To those who actually accept they have been blessed or lucky they can really make something of themselves. I.E. President Obama. To those who believe they truly DESERVE the wealth they have, they are headed down a DARK path. I.E. Romney or Cheney. I have made various wages througouth my life sometimes into six figures and have had friends with lots of money and some with very little. A surgeon friend of mine, like Obama, realizes it was hard work and luck that got him to his financial success. And considers himself blessed. You sound like the opposite and it goes to your character that you would actually be on this thread and try to convince people to vote against their own interest. You should be ASHAMED. You should beg GOD for forgiveness and seek ways to help those less fortunate than you…for one by Voting Democrat. READ the BIBLE and find out what JESUS….Not Romney’s FAKE JESUS, ….but the real one..GOD in the FLESH , thinks about the wealthy. “You cannot serve two Gods.” Repent Bill while you still breath, for when you stop …….IT IS TOO LATE !!!!

          7. montanabill October 24, 2012

            Obama realizes it was hard work to get wealthy? He wrote a couple of not-so-complete autobiographies. He used other people’s money to become President.
            He is blessed with two attributes. 1) He is, or appears to be, a good family man, 2) he is blessed with the ability to talk and make it sound like he is saying something. If you are going to be a charlatan, it is a very important gift.

            If you want jobs, a good economy, the middle class to become strong again, fewer people in poverty, then I’m trying to convince you, you are going the wrong way.

    12. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

      Go suck on a SOUR lemon!!!!!

    13. Cairndance October 23, 2012

      What is your comment on last weeks release by Daryl Issa of the names of over a hundred Lybians who have been helping us? He failed to redact their names, thus putting all of them in danger from Lybians who don’t support us!

      He gave support to our enemies, I think that is called treason!

      Of course when GWB’s team released Valerie Plames name, and put all of her contacts in danger, nothing was done about that!

      ISSA should be removed from Congress immediately!

      1. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

        I agree. I do not belong to a party, but seeing what Republicans actually sent to Congress, I will not vote Republican.

      2. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

        Both he and Rove could be tried for treason…and should be. Remember we are at war.
        I’ll tell you something that still wakes me up at night sometimes. When we pulled out of Iraq the first time there were thousands of Iraquis marching behind our tanks ready for the fall of Sadam. When we pulled up short and left they and their families were murdered and dumped in mass graves. I left the Army because of it and my Commander and his commander resigned their commissions and retired because of it. I still see those happy faces and the mass graves in my dreams now and then. I went to a certain Unnameable Intel site after the war to evaluate imagery intelligence….nasty nasty nasty pictures. Issa and his whitch hunt BS need to be contained and if at all possible prosecuted for this BS people are dying so he can stroke his ego. He wants nothing to do with the truth, he is a disgrace.

        1. Cairndance October 23, 2012

          Joel, Thank you for your service. I pray that the horrible memories will eventually be gone for good. When I think about my family members who have served for our country, while the Romney family was off spreading the word of the Mormon Church, it makes me angry.
          Ann Romney stated last week that her “boys” going off on their mission trips, was just like boys going off to the military! They left “boys” and came back “men”! I’m pretty certain that none of her “boys” had anyone firing weapons at them, and none came home missing a body part!

      3. montanabill October 24, 2012

        Was that secret information or simply general information? I checked into it and it appears Democrats are more worried about information that was publicly available than the true story behind the Libya attack.

        You had better have another look at the Valerie Plame incident.

        If Issa was removed, who would be left to look into Democrat mischief?

    14. Faraday_Cat October 23, 2012

      Soooo…what would the republicans in congress have said about Obama sending warplanes from a carrier into Libya, to strike a “downtown” location, no less…hmm…

      1. montanabill October 24, 2012

        If gotten that same general response from a lot of folks. I’m guessing you have never heard of helicopters and Marines.

    15. Sand_Cat October 24, 2012

      Not surprisingly, you propose an idiotic response of random bombing to an act committed by a small minority of the target. We should all be grateful that regardless of the proximity of an aircraft carrier (bombers from elsewhere, or submarines, or other ships could have responded if they’d had a target), we have a president who was bright enough to find out the facts rather than an ignorant, hotheaded moron like you.

      1. montanabill October 24, 2012

        It was a 6 hour battle and the news today should give cause to rethink.

  4. DemCommonSense October 23, 2012

    “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” – Semantics… You can call it what you want, but the verbage was used in response to this incident and designed to warn others that potential incidents will be met sharply and with power.
    Also, he gave FULL credit to the Navy Seal team that took out Bin Laden. But make no mistake that Obama did not blink when others did. Claim what you want, but we have a VERY strong President in the White House.

    1. FredAppell October 23, 2012

      Good post Dem, it is all semantics. The right is so caught up in the verbage that they make themselves look petty. I don’t care if President Obama claimed terrorists or militias or Santa Clause committed the Benghazi attack. No matter who did it, it was clear that it was a terrorist act. Plus President Obama was obligated to address the nation as quickly as he could even before all the facts were in. Hell, I would have made the same mistake given the nature and timing (coinciding with the Egyptian demonstrations) of the attack. If nothing had occurred then the Republicans would have found some other issue to bash the president with. This man could walk on water and save the universe and they would still loathe him. They did the same thing to Clinton.

      1. Andy Womack October 23, 2012

        Seems like a bunch of guys associate with a militia unit decided to attack a US facility in Benghazi. They may or may not have known who was there, just that they were American.
        An hour before they may have had no idea they were going to do this.

        1. FredAppell October 23, 2012

          I think I know the point your trying make. No matter how you wanna phrase it, it was still a terrorist act. The D.C. sniper was a terrorist in spite of the official spin.
          Street gangs are terrorists though authorities don’t categorize them as such. Though, look up terrorism in the dictionary and you will discover that they fit the definition perfectly.

      2. DurdyDawg October 23, 2012

        Not to mention Jimmy Carter.. He was guilty of accomplishing nothing through proxy.. Just like Obama, Carter was contained by the same idiots who wants Obama out, problem being.. we as a nation of voters didn’t know what slime was seeping out from congress (no internet) so we believed the lies.. We could of discovered the truth however by noticing that Carter was the most religious of all the presidents before him, a characteristic these neo-cons gravitated toward in every election they participated in BUT because he was a Democrat AND liberal, they threw him to the dogs and made a spectacle of the ineptness that they themselves orchestrated in order to declare, “Anybody but Carter!!”.. It worked perfectly then but now the internet is cramping their style and they’re slowly being found out as the main source of America’s internal political problems.

        1. FredAppell October 23, 2012

          That is why they are committing voter suppression. It is all they have left in their arsenal. By the way, I love the sign at the bottom of your statement. That is priceless and catchy too.

          1. Fern Woodfork October 23, 2012

            And To Date The Only People Has Been Caught With Voter Fraud Is The GOP/Tea Party!! 5 Times!!!!!!!!

          2. FredAppell October 23, 2012

            Hey Fern how are you doing tonight? By the way, that’s five times to many for me and ironic considering they are the ones screaming voter fraud.

    2. Cindy October 23, 2012

      Thank you its good to read comments on intelligent sensible people for a change Obama kicked Romney’s butt thats the President I like to see, Obama 2012

    3. talltine October 23, 2012

      Obama did not take out Bin Laden, and could not have stopped the forces that did if he wanted to. Our Spiecial forces took him out and hunted him down for 10 years that my good people what ever race you are the truth!
      He gets credit by default!

      1. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

        Actually implicit in the title Commander-in-Cheif is the ability to stop or start the forces that took him out. I was there when bush the first pulled up the entire first corps 50 miles short of bagdad. Lt Gen Calvin Waller, then commander of I Corps, resigned his commission and called Gen powell to tell him exactly what he thought of this “Bullshit” his word not mine. That’s how the military operates. Ask Mcarther the president pulled all his rugs out from undeer him. Ask Patton who wanted to go ahead and wipe out Russia as long as we were already there. Seriously you are just showing how much you don’t know when you spout off with this crap.

        1. Andy Womack October 23, 2012

          In each of the examples cited, the President probably made the correct decision.

        2. DurdyDawg October 23, 2012

          Thanks Joel.. I was about to chastise that idiot for lack of intellect but you beat me to it.. Glad you took the words out of my type.

          1. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

            Happy to do it…though I must say Dawg while I was in there searching for words I noticed one of your fillings is loose. love ya bro.

            And Andy I believe you are correct as well Although what MacArthur did for Japan was pretty incredible…his take on Korea was off base by a bit. Patton was basically a cowboy with a big name and not much sense. Rommel cleaned his clock in every fair fight they got into, the only way we finally won that one was to cut off his gas supply and make him a stationary target. Patton was a loose cannon and needed to be reined in.

      2. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

        And it was our and sad to say for the sake of YOU, that YOUR PRESIDENT (Get over it and you got 4 more years to do it), was the MAN that handed down the orders to get SIN Laden while BUSHEE pretended to want to get Bin Laden. But why in Sam poop will he when he is getting richer form the stupid war????? Face reality dude!!!!! Now! Because of a REAL President of the US, “Bin LAden been rotten”!!!!!!!!

      3. notafoxfan October 23, 2012

        jsoreneson is correct talltine..the special forces do not work on their own,nor do navy seals,nor any other military group,commander,general, whatever, unless they choose to be “rebels”..all military forces including the highest ranking officers are under the commander in chief, who happens to be the president..all covert and open military actions anywhere in the world are planned and discussed in the presidents office,including the information that led to finding bin laden,as are the use of “drones” or any other technology…your “credit by default” comment shows a lack of knowledge..

      4. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

        tall, I guess you don’t keep up on what is going on. If your only newssource is faux news that explains it. Obama had to make that call. Some of his own cabinet and the Vice President was against his decision. If it had not gone well, you would be happy to credit the president with the move.

    4. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

      I love EVERYONE as a true HUMAN and as a woman of the most high God. But I truly love you for telling the TRUTH in which Willard Mitt Romney and Lyin’ Ryan have NO CLUE about!!!!! President Obama rocks!!!!!

  5. Jim Lou October 23, 2012

    To paraphrase a well known game show:

    Will the real Mitt Romney sign in?

  6. totenkatz October 23, 2012

    Talking heads on both sides are saying different things on who won, who looked more presidental, etc. Only thing that matters now is November 6th.

  7. oldibtgdy October 23, 2012

    It’s infuriating to have that moron (er, sorry, Mormon) parrot focus group positions, changing from day-to-day, hour-to-hour equated with the president. Etch-a-Sketch moments aren’t appropriate for the leader of the free world. He’s going to get a lot of young men and women killed while further ruining the reputation/status of the US in the eyes of the world. The rest of the world is watching this reality TV show in horror, scared to death by the absolute stupidity of the American voting public. As a much maligned (correctly, btw) Republican expert once said “Fool me once, shame on you —– Uh —- And — Uh — You can’t fool me again”. Guess who’s advising old Etch-A-Sketch? The same herd of morons (er, sorry, —-). Maybe, as his spiritual founder, suffering from heat stroke, said — the US is (literally) the Garden of Eden. These people are dangerous. Equating these men in any way is impossible. The president is competant and has done an extraordinary job. Romney represents the low-information voter who’ll ignore his Romnesia. The rest of the world thinks that’s dangerous.

    1. YepThatTell October 23, 2012

      Right on! Well said! AMEN!

    2. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

      I agree except for one thing …and I think this is an important point. He’s not EVER going to be POTUS….and we should all be very careful about how we frame it…let’s just make a pact to talk about his chances in the past tense only and focus all our energy on touting Obama not pointing out the obvious and enormous flaws of mittens.

  8. Winston B October 23, 2012

    it was brought-out int he debate, Romney would have asked Pakistan if they could go after Bin laden, Wow! it that was the case Bin Laden would have never been taken down.

    That was decisive for Obama last night. Romney was quite listless and appeaeared sweaty. In a way, he was being schooled on the foreign affairs by Obama in a prophesorial way.

    1. neece00 October 23, 2012

      I noticed the sweating, someone told me that he was having stomach problems prior to the debate. Maybe it was butterflies.

      1. Lovefacts October 23, 2012

        I’m so glad I was the only one who saw Romney sweating. Half the time he looked like a deer in the headlights of an eighteen-wheeler heading straight for him.

        1. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

          I thought he looked constipated.

          1. Sand_Cat October 24, 2012

            Nah, he gushes too much shit on a daily basis for that!

      2. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

        Yesssssssssss Hissssss! Or snakes in the PIT!!!!!! Snakes are SNEAKY and so is Romney/Ryan!!!!!!

      3. DurdyDawg October 23, 2012

        That’s what happens when you eat you’re own underwear in order to profess you’re mock magnificence.

      4. Regina Lighteard October 24, 2012

        LOL!! No it was of a ” bunch of lies”!

    2. BDD1951 October 23, 2012

      They would have moved OBL to a safer place in a minute. This idea that their leaders didn’t know he was there is so much horse hockey.

      1. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

        Who is OBL?

        1. BDD1951 October 23, 2012

          osama bin ladin

  9. Steve O'Leary October 23, 2012

    Obama was the professor, Romney the schoolboy in this debate

  10. TZToronto October 23, 2012

    And as a result there are teachers with little math background who are “deemed” qualified to teach math by their principals simply because there are no qualified math teachers available. That’s just great!

  11. William Deutschlander October 23, 2012

    Romney certainly trys to dominate the time, unfortunately he rambles on and on saying nothing of substance or accuracy!

    1. grammyjill October 23, 2012

      He at one time tried to liken himself to Regan. In the case of talking on and on without saying anything, he is like Regan. I can remember his long speeches and wondering after what he said or did he actually say anything.

  12. ObozoMustGo October 23, 2012

    Obozo LIED again big time in the debate. When he challenged what Romney said about taking car companies through managed bankruptcy, he flat out LIED. Here is what Romney said when he wrote an OpEd in the NY Slimes on Nov. 8, 2008. Here is the link [replace the “dot” with a period]

    nytimes dot com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=3

    Here it is reprinted for you intellectually challenged useful idiots.

    IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

    Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

    I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

    First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

    That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

    Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

    The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

    You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

    The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

    Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

    Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

    It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

    But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

    The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

    In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

    That’s good common sense thinking and clearly Obozo is incapable of the same or being truthful about anything. Obozo is a LIAR!

    Have a nice day!

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell

    1. Jeansees October 23, 2012

      Your Opinion article dont prove nothing but more Romney BS

      1. ObozoMustGo October 23, 2012

        jeans… you are a moron! Romney said that he supported a managed bankruptcy of the auto industry, not a liquidation. Obozo lied when he challenged what Romney said. Clearly, Romney’s NYT OpEd piece that he wrote in 2008 shows that he was 100% truthful about what he said and what his position was, while Obozo the LIAR clearly was not telling you the truth…. as he so often does.

        You Obozo supporters are like battered women. You get beat up and you keep coming back for more. No matter how much Obozo lies to your face, you just keep on supporting him. They could publish pictures of Obozo performing lewd acts with a child and you’d still vote for him. That’s how stupid you are.

        Keep getting beat up. You obviously like it. Count yourself amongst the oblivious.

        Have a nice day!

        “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

        1. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

          That’s the way he said after the original statement came back to haunt him.

    2. WhutHeSaid October 23, 2012

      Well, if it isn’t the resident National Memo Nutcase. So how went the latest cross-burning, Bozo?

      1. ObozoMustGo October 23, 2012

        what…. Is the race card the only card you know how to play? I think it is. That’s the hallmark of a weak mind… an idiot that has no grasp of how to look at things from different perspectives.

        Who would I vote for? A white liberal or a black conservative?

        Answer the question, please.

        Have a nice day!

        “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” –Joe Biden on Barack Obama

        1. jarheadgene October 23, 2012

          PUT YOUR MONEY where your MOUTH is. Last nights debate showed that The ROMNEY that ROMNEY presented was in vast alignment with the President so if he is TRUTHFUL and aligns with him why change Presidents? VOTE OBAMA…..according to the pivoted shape-shifter
          he was in so much agreement….he wanted voters to think all Obamas good ideas were really his in advance. So vote OBAMA.

          1. ObozoMustGo October 23, 2012

            now now, Gene… you know that’s precisely the reason TO vote FOR Romney. Obozo has been a disaster in domestic policy and the economy. He needs to be gone NOW!

            * Economic growth of 1.3% per year is horrible. Not even keeping up with inflation
            * 23,000,000 Americans un/underemployed.
            * Obozo promised 5.4% unemployment. It’s still 8% in phony numbers, 14.7% in real U6 numbers. That’s 9 MILLION AMERICANS DIFFERENCE!!!!!!
            * Gasoline prices have more than doubled because of Obozo
            * Median American income has gone down nearly 10% from $54,500 to $50,000 under Obozonomics.
            * Workforce participation is at an all-time low since the Great Depression
            * The national debt has been run up to $16 TRILLION in 3.5 years. Obozo has added $6 TRILLION of that amount, the most of any other president in history, by far.
            * His own White House budget forecasts between $20 to $22 TRILLION by 2016.

            And you want more of that, Gene? Come on bro, don’t be a fool. How can you look at his record and say you want more of that? That’s downright pathetic, Gene. It is, and you know it. All you can do is believe a false narrative that a failed president has made up about his opponent because he has NOTHING to run on with his record. Nothing Obozo says about Romney is true or sticks, except with the useful idiots out there.

            Gene, you need to wise up and break free from your racist ways. You know you’re only voting for Obozo because he’s black, because it sure as hell can’t be because of his record. We’ve established that.

            Wise up buddy. I’m here to help you, Gene. Just ask me and I’ll coach you through the addiction every step of the way. I’m here to help. Don’t be oblivious, OK?

            Have a great day, my friend!

            “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

    3. Jim Myers October 23, 2012

      Replying to ObozoMustGo

      This is a small part of the story that you quoted.

      “First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.”

      There is one glaring omission in this statement. Three of the four auto makers mentioned are Japanese.


      Certainly the wages of American auto workers is higher than the wages of Japanese workers.



      1. ObozoMustGo October 23, 2012

        JM…. don’t be such a leftist freak. Can’t any of you useful idiots get rid of your jealousy and envy glasses through which you see everything? Just once, is that possible? I don’t think so. With you leftist freaks, everything is bouregois vs. proletariat, isn’t it?

        The point of Romney’s assessment is that the companies needed a reset which not only included labor, but also included kicking out management that got them where they are in the first place. Didn’t you read the piece? WTF is wrong with you? Aside the fact that your a jealous leftist freak. WTF is wrong with you?

        Have a nice day!

        “You cannot make the poor man rich by making the rich man poor.” – Winston Churchill

    4. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

      big problem bozo…the auto industry did restructure itself and is now producing cars that not only compete but are dominating the american market….so ALLL yes ALLL of Mitt’s predictions turned out to be wrong just as his solution was a see through ploy to allow his bank buddies to buy the entire industry for pennies on the dollar. Probably so he could help them load it with debt and ship it to china. Look around what are people driving these days???? I see ford ford ford chevy chevy ford dodge trucks dodge cadillac ford…etc. go away until you grow up.

      1. ObozoMustGo October 24, 2012

        Joel… obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. GM is heading toward more financial trouble again. Romney’s point was that if the government gets in bed with them, their inherent problems that put them into bankruptcy in the first place will NOT be solved. And they are moving in the same direction again. Romney’s predictions are coming true before your eyes. Look at GM’s financials and earnings statements. Look at their stock price. It’s down about 50% from it’s high.

        Further, you’re too stupid to know the facts about GM. Especially in light of your dumba$$ comment about Romney shipping anything to China. That’s just another useful idiot cliche you fools love to repeat. Here are the facts:

        – GM has 202,000 employees. 167,000 of them work overseas. That’s right! Your tax dollars are supporting a foreign company.
        – GM is building plants and hiring engineers and is growing massively IN CHINA! Their CEO admits that their future commitment is TO CHINA, not America, you fool.
        – Fully 7 out of 10 cars GM makes are made overseas.
        – Since we gave them $80 BILLION in taxpayer dollars, they have hired fewer than 4500 people in America, you fool.

        So you see, you idiot, your messiah keeps on perpetuating the lies about GM and the lies about Romney. The fact is that lots of companies go bankrupt, but that doesn’t mean they go away. They simply get to restructure their contracts and liabilities under the cover of court protection. Following restructure, they come out of bankruptcy operating as the same company, but with a manageable cost structure. This is exactly what Romney said.

        So if you want to keep perpetuating the lie, justs like all you leftist freaks must do, than keep on doing it. But for those who are objective and are reading this post, they will know the truth.

        Go back to you crack pipe, you brain dead moron. And keep on being oblivious.

        Have a nice high!

        “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

  13. govissue October 23, 2012

    Obama lost and Romney won.

    1. Jeansees October 23, 2012

      govissue….. what debate did you watch last night.. OBAMA WON!!!!

      1. govissue October 23, 2012

        Obama is a liar,thief and a traitor to all American’s and belong’s behind bar’s with Bill Clinton who is also a traitor.

  14. gargray October 23, 2012

    And people will vote for Romney, don’t they listen to what he says? They don’t care about this country or even Europe just a long as Obama is defeated. Destroy is their main objective.

  15. Vonerica G. Snipe October 23, 2012

    If you want to be President, you must be President for “ALL” people. This includes the entire “WORLD.” GOP’s and other hate groups don’t really mind OUR President being bi-racial, what upsets them is the fact that he is married to a beautiful black women! Who is also very very intelligent.

  16. Jeansees October 23, 2012

    Romney LIED AND LIED twisted truth…. He did not project being a presidential leader… he projected being a pompous *ss bossman… He will have all those who vote for him their pink slips so he and bain can outsource your jobs to Indonesia his next country of choice to make money off of. China is not bargaining like they were… due to Obama cracking down on them.


  17. Jay Tee October 23, 2012

    OBAMA 2012!

  18. felix h October 23, 2012

    Romney is near Friend of Hugo Chavez

  19. Lovefacts October 23, 2012

    I’m still trying to figure out how Romney plans to get the additional 100,000 troops he wants. I wonder, is he talking about re-instituting the draft. If so, will his sons–those under 30–be considered for it? Or will their Mormon missionary work qualify as going to war as Ann Romney claimed.

    1. Jeansees October 23, 2012

      Good Question Lovefacts!

    2. neece00 October 23, 2012

      The problem I have with the missionary work they do is that it does not help the country, it helps the Mormon church get more members. I don’t see any of the missionary work helping a homeless shelter, soup kitchen or a needy family.

      1. oldtack October 23, 2012

        Did you ever read “The Book of Mormon” and compare it with the Christian Bible? These people are followers of Moroni, Nephi, Elohim and others but they are in no way followers of the Christian God or Jesus Christ. Read the “Book” and the History of the “Book” and you will see where these people are coming from and what is their ultimate goal.

        1. neece00 October 23, 2012

          I did not read the book but I grew up in a very high Mormon community and understand more than I want to.

      2. DurdyDawg October 23, 2012

        That’s because if they fauxed that in the media, it would turnout as pathetic as Ryan’s attempt.. They don’t want voters to know they’re understanding of the middle class and poor is absolutely nil so they use missionary work as draft shelters and elite upper class status.

  20. Cindy October 23, 2012

    I have never seen the hatred and racism towards a President as I have towards this one the repulicans hate him because they got beat by a black man its so sad that they would like for the enocomy sink just to bring him down this is not the country I grew up in anymore.

    1. Jeansees October 23, 2012

      And the Ring Leader of this war on the President is lead by John McCAIN!!!!

      1. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

        I don’t think John McCain is that type of guy. He is a hawk and therefore, I cannot agree with everything he says. The tea party, who is being financed by the Koch brothers, are the dupes who are going forth with more hatred for minorities than since hitler.

  21. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

    One thing President Obama mentioned, concerning national security, was cyber attacks. At least this administration realizes they could cripple this country and leave us vulnerable to other attacks.

  22. John October 23, 2012

    Lets face it! Its over for the flea party, and Romney the dummy! and Ryan the Defiant! In Other words, DUMB AND DUMBER!!!

    1. lana ward October 23, 2012

      President of the United States, Mitt Romney!!!

      1. Sand_Cat October 23, 2012

        What are you (besides a troll), a broken record?

        1. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

          Sand we’ve decided to ignore Lana…she has daddy issues and wants to be in a threesome with romney ryan…she said so the other day…they will come to her house and make her the center of a sticky vanilla oreo. any way when idiots like gov and lana show up just ignore them…bill is worth talking to..he may actually be a reasonable man.

    2. Donald Schirmer October 23, 2012

      You make have to live with DUMB and Dummy for four or eight years and see America become a part of the Chinese government.

  23. Fran October 23, 2012

    I love listening to our President as he gives all the details as is…when Mitt goes off the wall…Mitt was warned I am sure..not to react to a lot of things that the President was saying about him personally as he often does…to reflect a better picture of himself on the whole..but, an actor as Mitt is and as a con-artist..he can manipulate the conversation very well..weather it is to keep his mouth shut a bit more or to try to take over the debate as he tried to do in the past…and Obama didn’t let him have the stage..the way…that Obama presents things is just awesome…he is the man that I am looking for in the White House again…because he isn’t a pretender and knows what is going on…and the rich will have to pay taxes once again…to help with many things..it has all been left on the middle class just too long…and to know that it is the middle class that has to pay lots more into the payroll tax is sick…..and isn’t it funny…how a lot of the american people have short term memory and tend to forget that not turning over his tax records and the kinds of dealings he has had with unreputable companies…shows what kind of character he has..a lot of the american people have taken their eyes off of that..and how he loves to fire people and how he gets $20,000 per head when he fires people…thes all reflect the kind of deception that he has performed in getting to be so rich…in the wrong ways…do, we want this kind of man in the White House…not hardly..I would never take my eyes off of a naricssistic person for one minute..these con-artist are professionals at screwing others out of monies..and to have it for themselves…some people on into the “me” generation and not into the “we” generation..thinking only of hissefl..and have the american people forgotten all that he said that he was not worried about the poor because the state will take care of them..I would love to see him donate to the poor aside from his man-made church, the Mormon Church.
    And when he told that lady member of his church when he was a Pastor of it..to go get an abortion..and now he is saying he is against abortion…does not add up…to being Godly.
    Again…con-artist can shift themselves as to keep others from seeing the real person within. they are so polished at what they do…oh, well..he is doing good to keep his character references in the dark..lately..and there hasn’t been any mention of them..which I think that should be first and foremost to as to how people will vote…a leopard don’t change their spots..believe me..and that “fuzzy math” that he has..that does not add up right.

    1. lana ward October 23, 2012

      The President of the United States, Mitt Romney!!!

    2. Donald Schirmer October 23, 2012

      I wonder ifLittle Mitt as a child sitting before his elders in the Mormon church had to lie about whether he touched himself. I think this idea that the elders do is a rediculous thing. How do you go to the bathroom if you don’t touch yourself. I touch myself when I shave and other personal things which should not be a concern of the elders. I should ask those youngmen who come to my house who are Mormon missionaries “Do You Touch Yourself?”

    3. Sand_Cat October 23, 2012

      Sorry to nit-pick, but all churches (and other religious organizations) are clearly man-made, regardless of what they claim. They do vary according to the amount of harm or good they do, but attacking a candidate based on religious grounds and appealing to religious prejudice is contrary to the spirit in which this country was established and contrary to the wishes of the founders, besides being plain wrong. The only exception to this is the case where the candidate – like Torquemada Santorum – makes it clear that he intends to use his office to promote his religion, and even that is a weak criticism in the days of widespread acceptance of “faith-based initiatives.” To be clear, my own opinion on that last topic is best reflected by a bumper sticker which says “The Inquisition was a faith-based initiative,” but in today’s politics that puts me among the marginalized.

      1. CAThinker October 23, 2012

        Not so fast SC… you might be openly marginalized, but I would say there is a groundswell of people realizing that organized religion exists only to maintain itself and its influence rather than do the will of God… After all, for the low, low, low price of “fill in the blank” I will tell you what God told me… and if you don’t send me your money, “my” God will damn you and you will forever be cursed with a middle-class existence… Satire aside – religion isn’t the only way to commune with God and physicists are starting to get close… some bible thumpers would want you to think otherwise – it ruins business…

  24. govissue October 23, 2012

    Obama is a liar,thief and traitor and Bill Clinton is a traitor to all America. If you believe what either one of those 2 say I feel sorry for you.

    1. Donald Schirmer October 23, 2012

      BILL CLINTON BALANCED THE BUDGET. GEORGE BUSH INCREASED THR BUDGET TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS FORCING OBAMA TO DO THE SAME TO CORRECT MANY OF THE PROBLEMS BUSH HAD OVER HIS EIGHT YEAR SPAN, and now govissue or whatever calls Obama a liar, thief, and traitor. I think Romney is more the liar, the romneyhood is taking from the poor and giving to the rich and a traitor to all Americans for wanting to get rid of Medicare and Social Security and make it a part of Bain Capital. The very rich do not need medicare or Social Security as they can live on their wealth and pass it on to the next generation to do the same. It the poor and Middle class that need these things. Romney even wants to get rid of Obamacare, since it is really Romneycare taken from his governorship of Massachusetts and I post with my real name

      1. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

        Donald, taking us into war under false pretenses and torturing prisoners were acts that should have been called treason.

    2. Sand_Cat October 23, 2012


    3. Jim Myers October 23, 2012

      Replying to govissue

      And a George Bush clone would do exactly what?

  25. liestopper October 23, 2012

    Your right , never has a sitting president been attacked so much by so call leaders of our country. never seen any party like the Repukes say their number one priority is to see that the president fail and is a one termer. That doesn’t help out the country in anyway cause the Repukes don’t care. When the mid-term elections came in 2010 the Repukes ran on jobs but shortly after they won the house they forgot about jobs.

    1. Maggie Croft October 23, 2012

      liestopper, This is absolutely true. Mitch McConnell said, “Our number one goal is to make Obama a one-term president.”

      What should have been said is. “Now, that the election is over, let’s get to work on some solutions.”

  26. PGA October 23, 2012

    Romney is not presidential material. He was totally out of his league.

  27. karinursula October 23, 2012

    What really got on my nerves was Romney’s perpetual smirks.

  28. Sylvan Bascom October 23, 2012

    Mitt Romney should forget he ever ran for President. Agreeing with The President on the administration’s Foreign Policy shows his inability to be our leader because Just like the last GOP’s, he may start the wrong wars.He was rambling all over the place and no clarity on a firm position. Let me tell him running a Government is a far cry from running a Business. Americans please take a very serious note of that statement. In a Business, one has to protect the shareholders’ bottom line.
    In Government, one has to protect all the people not only the top but the middle and the bottom.
    In business people lose their jobs indescriminately for sake of the Bottom line.

    I hate when Business people come into politics with the notion they can do better as a Government Leader because they may have had some success sometimes questionable.
    Government is an ongoing process. People change and policy execution style changes but the focus remains the people.

    1. Andy Womack October 23, 2012

      I’m encouraged that a potential US president is intelligent enough to change his mind.

      1. Jim Myers October 23, 2012

        Replying to Andy Womack

        You stated “I’m encouraged that a potential US president is intelligent enough to change his mind.”

        You forgot the rest of the message.


        1. Andy Womack October 23, 2012

          I’m glad you appreciated the irony. I also hope you can see the truth. If Mr Romney becomes president, we can only hope he doesn’t mean most of what he’s said.

    2. DurdyDawg October 23, 2012

      If the Mittwit becomes POTUS you can bet he and the ‘pee’ party will try to change us into the United Corporations of America and their first agenda (after gutting Obamacare and social services) will be to sell off as much federal land to the highest bidders and apply the proceeds to the military war machine that will in turn prevent the new owners from acquiring their land thus insuring more profitable wars. And which land would they sell off? Why, the Indian reservations of course as they haven’t reamed them in recent times. America is NOT a corporation and hiring a capitalist b’ness shark would make as much sense as electing a ‘B’ movie has-been actor who had nothing to contribute but old pioneer stories, an international deal while ignoring his own country and the voters who hired him and playing “starwars” with empty cannons while jeopardizing the lives of every American had the truth of his empty threats come out.

  29. govissue October 23, 2012

    Bill Clinton sold top secret information to China so now there missles can reach America. Obama lied about getting job’s back in America and sign’s free trade agreement’s that send our job’s overseaes. Obama and his wife steal money from the taxpayer’s to travel all over the world and support foreign nation’s more than America. Obama is a traitor because he give’s invader’s from the south which they are called illegal immigrant’s but are actually invader’s amnesty and they are taking over America.

    1. Jim Myers October 23, 2012

      Replying to govissue

      When you define “traitor”, do you mean someone who gives aid and comfort to our enemies? Wouldn’t that define Dick Cheney? I mean, after all, he “OUTED” Valerie Plame, a top CIA operative, in order to retaliate against her husband, Joe Wilson, for telling the truth.

      In my book, that is giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

    2. Andy Womack October 23, 2012

      Such hostility.
      Pick a state or a group of states. Persuade enough like minded individuals to move there. Take over state legislators and Governorships.

  30. bcarreiro October 23, 2012

    we do not need a president who has to learn something, time and time again…………mitt i think obama sunk your battleship. maybe you should start with chutes and ladders first then candyland and then a game of sorry ass later.

  31. Michael Ross October 23, 2012

    I don’t know, I thought Romney’s geography failure was a pretty huge blunder. By calling Syria Iran’s link to the sea, he not only indicated that he’s completely ignorant of Iran’s location on the map, but also that he hadn’t been paying attention to the months of tension in the Persian Gulf while the embargo was in effect. It showed, not only how much he knows about foreign policy, but also how much he cares to pay attention to it.

  32. Andy Womack October 23, 2012

    I’m encouraged that a potential US president is intelligent enough to change his mind.
    Many of Mr. Romneys advisors are former Bush Administration Defense and State Department employees.
    These people were a part of a team that really screwed up multiple times. I believe they screwed up because of a deeply flawed ideological vision of how the US should interact with other nations.
    I really don’t want to hire them again
    Does voting for Mitt Romney mean you want to hire them back?

  33. lydia4000 October 23, 2012

    I cannot believe that this Mitt does not worth nothing but to lie all the time to American. He should be ashame of himself. Also, I want American to read his lip, he is a control man who like to control women because the tone and atittude shows who he was. We do not need such a carracterman as our president. He sheep job to oversea, lie about his taxes, if not so let him bring out what he said about his tax return to publish for America to see. I listened to all the campaign and debate he is a big lier.

  34. nobsartist October 23, 2012

    willard is a lying, tax cheating idiot.

  35. Dianrib October 23, 2012

    NO matter what MITT says or how much he flips His loyal followers/ will vote for him anyway

    1. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

      luckily they are a small minority…get out the vote.

  36. fastfootedd October 23, 2012

    The 2nd debate – how about the third? –
    My God the man will say anything in order to get elected even if that means changing his policy day to day. How can anyone trust a man with his character? The man simply has NO CHARACTER.
    I’m moving to another country should the Mitt and Ryan Monster manage to get into the Oval Office – We don’t want to be associated with the embarrassing fact that the citizens of our USA would even consider much less select him and his boy Ryan to lead our country.
    It was bad enough when Bush stole the election and drove us into bankruptcy. We cannot afford another clown. All indications show that we are heading in the right direction – why change that? People are conditioned for rapid change these days – and exhibit zero patients, we should expect instant fixes especially when it comes to our current state. Just imagine what strides we would have made had the Republican Party not be focused on “Making Obama a One Term President. They did absolutely nothing to help our situation and yet we did climb out of the cavern that we were left in by the Republican Party.
    It took 8 years under Bush to get us into this mess; we should allow President Obama 8 years to dig us out. He deserves another term. He knows and understands Foreign Policies were as the other two can probably declare that they can see Russia from their homes – Mitt from all 12 of his. The so called Governor of Mass. where his approval rating was 22% should serve to show people that he is not an acceptable choice. He’s a fake and would be a puppet for his billionaire backers who have an agenda of increase their wealth all for power, while destroying American from Middle down. They Flat out tell us what they are up to and yet many of my countrymen/women will actually vote for them – WHY? It truly is embarrassing and worse eventual destruction of American as we once knew it.

  37. govissue October 23, 2012

    Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is different than selling out. Captured enemy soldier’s are given aid and comfort by medic’s in battle.

  38. govissue October 23, 2012

    I may not like Obama and all that he has done to ruin America but I also do not agree with all of what Romney want’s to do.

  39. stoptheinsanity October 23, 2012

    Etch-a-Sketch Romney appeared very aloof, disheveled and confused during the foreign policy debate. He was sweating like a pig and it showed. President Obama was very coherent, cogent and very much in command of the facts as it related to foreign policy. The President appeared very presidential and a very capable and knowledgeable Commander-in-Chief. Romney seemed so lost and out of his arena. Romney agreed with a lot of the president’s foreign affairs policies at the debate but, for all of the time that he was on the campaign trail, his views were the exact opposite of the president. This charlatan changes colors more than a chameleon. Romney will say anything to get elected. The sad reality is that they are a lot of right-wing drones who will vote for him no matter what.

  40. DemCommonSense October 23, 2012

    It required the go-ahead from the Chief Executive to get Bin Laden, no matter how you characterize it. So yes, I stand by my original statement that he did not blink when faced with the task of authorizing the action to take out the man who brokered the death of 3,000 + human beings, bringing whatever closure this country could to those who have lost so much. Also, I correctly state, that he did not assume credit for this. He praised the intelligence community and the Navy Seals that executed this mission so successfully.

  41. oldtack October 23, 2012

    That sect is nothing like the image they portray.

  42. Daniel Jones October 23, 2012

    Mitt Romney seeks to be ready to adopt any policy called for.

    Unfortunately, he comes across as a weak reed, and the last one the Republicans foisted on us was George W. Bush.

    Do we really need more of the same, yet again?

    I read a letter in the opinions section of the Monday Roanoke Times headed up by the title “Romney would bring back the nation of old” or words to that effect.

    I’ll be listening to some old Billy Joel after this, so here’s the message; “You know, the good old days weren’t always good, and tomorrow’s not as bad as it seems..”

    Food for thought.

    1. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

      You know the good old days SUCKED for blacks and latinos and women and soldiers and a whole slice of the working class….what makes you think they want to go back Mitt?

  43. jerrimyers October 23, 2012

    He is a master flip flopper, and he doesn’t even blink when he tells his new position. When he was trying to explain away his bullying of his fellow student and cutting the boy’s hair off–he said he really didn’t remember it. That type of character should scare the pants off the voters.

    1. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

      You know I was captain of the football team and a jock but I was never really a bully. I did occasionally do things to people who pissed me off and when I see those people now I appologize. I have never forgotten even one incident when I made someone else suffer…and I guarentee you Mitt didn’t forget either…he is ashamed and to much of a punk ass to just say “Iwas a dumbass kid and I was wrong.” That’s pretty much how I handle it and most of those people, about 3, that I have run into over the years say “forget it man I already have.” So either he is a liar at best or a sociopath at worst. Either way to say you forgot is the move of a punkass.

  44. 1AmericanHoney27 October 23, 2012

    Yesterday was the first day of early voting in the GREAT STATE OF TEXAS… I VOTED OBAMA /BIDEN…. As I watched the last of the 3 debates I was filled with pride for I know in my heart I voted for the best team on the ticket… In fact all Dems got my vote…. As I watched Nitwit Mitt I thought to myself that had he not wasted all those $$$$$$$$ on all his lies and trips to spread those lies he alone could’ve contributed those $$$$$$$ to help balance the American budget. After all it was his party and cronies that put us in this cess pool to begin with… Sadly enough he continued in Republican style and again wasted what could’ve been useful… Just like his wife using tax payers $$$ for secret service to follow her for a day at the beach…. Why does she need SS….? She’s not the President’s wife and with Luck she never will be… Be smart and vote Obama / Biden so we can continue to move… F-O-R-W-A-R-D!!!!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA……

  45. George October 23, 2012

    The only thing Romney talks about is jobs and Economy and the stupid Americans
    buying these lies. I wonder what would he talk had the economy been too good.
    Nothing because he had no policy. He endorsed the president on every foreign
    policy put forth by this administration.

  46. Andrew Rei October 23, 2012

    Wow, did President Obama land a few uppercuts to the jaw of Mittens last night! The “foreign policy of the 80’s, social policy of the 50’s and financial policy of the 20’s” statement may have won the election for President Obama and his fellow Democrats. The “we’re not counting battleships” comment along wih the aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines comment was particularly damaging, as it made Mittens look like a Teabagging dolt. The “fewer horses and bayonets” comment was bad for Mittens, too. Last night, the meme on Facebook was about battleships. I chimed in with: “‘President Obama: ‘E-8’; Mittens: ‘You just sank my campaign, Mr. President!'” That riffed off of John Kerry, who tweeted that Obama had sunk Mittens’ battleship.
    If last night’s debate did two things, these were the two: first, it showed us that those of us who voted for then-Senator Obama for President were correct in our decision and, second, that we should vote to re-elect him.
    The GOP has four problems right now: messaging (really bad); messengers (extremist *ssholes); defections of anywhere from 5-25 million moderates and the fact that the party is near death. If the political doctor calls the time of death of the Republican Party at 23:00 (11pm) Eastern time on 6 November, 2012, I predict that what’s left of the party will split into two: Conservative and Tea Party Militia. The former GOP moderates will have three choices: go to one of the two parties created after the split; become Democrats or Independents and, the thing I think is going to happen, which is for them to become members of the much-more sane Progressive Party, which has both GOP and Demo Centrists in it.
    When the comedic performances that were generously called “debates” by the GOP began last year, those of us who have enough working brain cells to conjure up some intelligence knew the strategy that the eventual GOP nominee would have to employ: go Far Wrong in the primaries and then try to get back to the middle. As for the former, check. But, Mittens’ move back to the center was a particularly long one and he waited way too long to do so. Mittens was caught between a rock and a hard place: he could have gone back to the middle back in late May, when it was fairly obvious that he had won the GOP nomination. But, the big problem was (and still is) that the Cons and Baggers don’t trust nor like him, so he had to wait until after the GOP convention to make that trip. And, even then, he still waited too long as it was 3 October, the night of the first debate, before revealing himself as the Massachusetts Moderate Mittbot (LOL).
    It’s time to tell the truth here, everybody: Mittens’ campaign is the worst-run in several decades. The candidate is a greedy and elitist fascist corporate plutarch and too many people have realized it. If you include Utah as one of his “home” states because he “bailed out” the Salt Lake Olympics, Mittens could lose ALL THREE of his home states! We already know he’s gonna lose Massachusetts (and by a very wide margin) and Michigan (where the trees are the right height but the people remember his “let Detroit go bankrupt” Op-Ed from 4 years ago). And, when you add in Freddie Munster’s home state, Wisconsin, that could be a total of four home states lost in one presidential campaign, which should be a record! LOL
    This Progressive Non-Affliated voter, who submitted his ballot yesterday to the county elections office in person, makes the following recommendation: vote Democrat, straight ticket. The GOP have shown us that extremist and ignorant idiots (TPM) have joined the avarice-fueled aristocrats (Conservatives) that were already there to make a political party that’s our biggest threat, foreign and domestic. If we’re stupid enough to vote these dumb bastards back into total power, a mistake that this country made twice (2000 and 2004), we’ll deserve the fascist corporate plutarchy we’ll get as a result of such stupidity. Vote DEMOCRAT from now through 6 November, 2012.

  47. jesuschild8894 October 23, 2012

    Romney is a copy cat! His real policy sucks! So, he had to copy the real thing–President Obama policy. Romney is definitely an etch-a-sketch candidate.

  48. Onofre J. Escobar Rivera October 23, 2012

    One thing to mention is Romney was silent on Benghazi last night because last time he talked about it he did it based on information provided by Fox News, a nest of right-wing virulent commentators, that disseminate falsities and pure virulent propaganda. Last night, Obama showed he is our Commander In Chief and definitely has a good handling of international affairs. May God Bless Obama, all of us, America and the world in general.

  49. Y October 23, 2012

    To He gets credit by default……………please stop the nonsense He gets credit as President of the United States of America. I am a proud veteran and we serve under the President of the United States so yes President Obama gets full credit right along with the military team that took out Bin Laden. Please do not try to lessen our Presidents image or accomplishments. The commander-in-chief is President Obama so get it right!

  50. HajjaRomi October 23, 2012

    Romney is a bully. His first debate with Obama showed us that.

    But, bullies are cowards, and when confronted, they almost always back down. That is what happened in the second debate.

    So, Romney’s behavior in the debate last night should have come as no surprise. Usually when bullies lose, and their cowardice emerges, they end up whining and “playing nice.”

    And that’s indeed what happened last night.

    I’m still voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, though. The snivelling obsequiousness of BOTH candidates towards Israel, which is NOT a friend of the American people NOR an ally (as its attack on the USS Liberty should have taught us) is sickening. We might not be able to balance the budget by cutting out the billions we shovel at Israel every year (and their friends on Wall Street) in direct cash and military aid, but it would help, and it would also convince the rest of the world, including the (apparently) problematic “Arab Street” that we were truly even-handed and committed to peace. I have not forgotten Romney’s words when he was secretly taped about not bothering to try to make peace in the ME, and regardless of how compromised the Democrats have been by AIPAC and the Israel lobby, at least they’ve done that. Still, a few votes for a truly independent Third Party might convince the DINOsaurs and RINOsaurs in DC that American military “prowess” (or bullying) will not accomplish anything except more deaths of American cannon fodder and corporate profiteers in the “defense” (i.e. war) industry.

  51. Colt October 23, 2012

    The debate on the economy took obama by surprise, obama was groaning on about tires.
    The sure sign that Romney won was when he pulled obama into a debate about the economy.
    To the polls people, on with our new prez!

  52. Charles Sutton October 23, 2012

    I wish this p resident had as Mitt about Bain sending jobs to China.

  53. Charles Sutton October 23, 2012

    I wish the president had ask mitt about bain sending jobs to china.

  54. notafoxfan October 23, 2012

    for the sake of all of us here in this country,lets get out to vote for obama..romney and his “etch a sketch” policies just show he is highly dependent on his “advisors”,tea party or republican, to tell him what to say..his running mate ryan has made more policy statements on his own, than romney (scary!)and then had to pull back because as romney himself said “im the one running for president,not mr ryan”…

  55. WillNeverVoteRepublican October 23, 2012

    Well said DurtyDawg!!!! LOL

  56. latebloomingrandma October 23, 2012

    How many Mitt Romneys are there?? Of all the Mitts I thought there were, this one was a new one who showed up last night. Gone was the bully and the interrupter of just days ago. He is a complete product of his handlers and that should scare everyone. Half the country is ready to elect a schizophrenic. More personalities than Sybil. I’m sticking with no drama Obama. At least he know how to think and reason on his own and doesn’t have to ask a consultant–to whom am I speaking today and what is my positiion?

  57. nana4gj October 23, 2012

    This Opportunist, Inauthentic man, decided to portray himself as “harmless” on foreign policy so that he could continue to make the sale on his “expertise” on the economy. He wants people who believe the President’s foreign policy and national security credentials are stellar, are the same as his, so, if there is no cause for concern there, he will be better because of his “economic creds”.

    Of course, his team of advisers, belie that story. As does the fact that the man who wanted to pose as “harmless” just reinforced his lack of Character, Authenticity, and his willingness to say anything, do anything, and the rest be damned because we will never know what is going on in that White House, no matter what some believe they have voted for.

    And does anyone believe that any foreign leader/press who witnessed last night’s debate believed anything he said, much less made any sense out of it? Does anyone believe he would have their trust, confidence, including Israel?

    Who could do anything as significant as foreign engagement with a slippery eel?

  58. nana4gj October 23, 2012

    At the end of the day….or campaign….we are left with the issue of Character, the best determinant for President. After all, no one is qualified when they enter office based on prior work experience, educational preparation, etc.

    The candidate has to have the kind of Character that would motivate him to do the right things for the right reasons for the right and good of all, domestic and foreign, whether it is popular or not. That would require some integrity, courage, honesty, convictions, philosophies, humility, respect, wisdom, and good interpersonal skills and excellent problem solving ability, and no knee-jerk responses.

    He has none of these. He has no Character.

  59. Tom_D44 October 23, 2012

    Nicely said awake. So you understand the complexities of these situations, all of them, and regardless of who’s on watch. Could you please inform the media? Oh wait they don’t care.

    See what really pisses off people is the hypocrisy you see when these stories get reported to the American people. When GW first got into office (and let me preface this by saying I am no fan of GW) he was faced with the biggest act of terror ever experienced in our country and there wasn’t one person I knew who wasn’t completely stunned by the magnitude of the situation. And if you give GW the benefit of the doubt, he probably did listen to his advisors, and take lots of their advice – good and bad. He made some good calls and some bad calls but all said and done, he had quite a few more calls to make than Obama has had in his 4 years. But GW was crucified by the media, had shoes thrown at him, and was disrespected worse than any president I had ever seen in my lifetime. GW hatred was rampant. And when a situation like this happens to Obama, and there are so many questions as to the competency of the team he has in place, how truthful, and “transparent” they all were in giving us the story and who knew what and when, Obama goes onto Letterman or The Daily Show, or the View. And there the most anyone wants to know about him is what his favorite color socks are in the morning or how his new hypo-allergenic dog is adjusting to life in the Whitehouse. Really?

    1. Joel Sorenson October 23, 2012

      You know there is some truth to what you say but the financial crisis, though a different style crisis, is still a pretty big deal. While GWB was hated and disrespected overseas and eventually at home towards the end. Obama has been disrespected since before he was sworn in, and it NEVER stops on faux noise, just never not even for a day. BTW speaking of appearing on The Daily Show the OPTIMAL comment that was Stewart trying to be coy and Obama just repeated his coyness. I think it is worth noting that McCain voiced his discust with the interview AN HOUR BEFORE THE INTERVIEW AIRED. He commented on a retweet without even waiting for the actual interview to air before the knee jerk condemnation machine got kick started by his fake ire. Oh yeah and dealing with the two wars GWB left us in as he rode off into complete anonimity, I bet that sucks every day for Obama.

  60. Jacqueline Washington October 23, 2012


  61. Mulligatonney October 23, 2012

    …don’t know which debate you were watching – Romney played OBama like a violin, looking cool and composed while the communist-in-chief scowled and shot Romney angry “mad-dog” looks regularly while regurgitating rehearsed one-liners like a middle-schooler. Anyone who has a modicum of knowledge of politics could see that. Romney appeared capable – like a man who was confident and could handle the job. OBama, while mixing a few reasonable points in with the rest of his script – quite often appeared like a spoiled brat being denied his “Turkish Delight”…

    1. ObozoMustGo October 24, 2012

      Mulli… how are you? I hope you are well. You have hit the nail right on the head with this one my friend. Obozo acted like a desparate fool and President Elect Romney played it cool and refused to step into Obozo’s dog crap mines and traps.

      Have a great day!

      “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency…Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” – Czech Republic newspaper Prager Zeitung

      1. Mulligatonney October 24, 2012

        I am well, Mr. Obozo Must Go… still studying the collective psyche of the closet statists who populate these “progressive” septic tanks… They seem unable to break away from the seductive flute of the “Pied Piper” even as they see the approaching cliff… Truly fascinating… He can tell them anything and they begin to swoon and cheer before he is even halfway finished with his sentence, bathing themselves in an orgiastic revelry with empty rhetoric and OBamaspeak. “Romnesia, Horses & bayonets, flip-flopper”, etc. etc. ad infinitum. But – when the Moslem Marxist Barak Hussein OBama completely changes his position on homosexuals marrying, he calls it “evolving thought” and gets a free pass from the main-stream media, just like everything else he says that is in direct opposition to the Constitution. “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others…” Animal Farm. A truly fascinating phenomenon” And his whore-shippers so badly wanted “hope and change” to be true, they are now doubling down on their bad bet and asking for another 4-year helping of left-wing sodomy. Fascinating. The music is so beautiful, they don’t even care that they are being marched over a cliff.

        Here’s a question for you – if 96% of the blacks and over 50% of the whites voted for OBama in 2008, why do the statists still get to call the whites racists? Answer: Because the Statist has declared himself God. And that, my freedom loving friend – is the crux of the problem. “Pride goeth before a fall…” Proverbs.

        …”professing to be wise, they became fools…” New Testament

        1. ObozoMustGo October 24, 2012

          Mulli… You’re learning well, my young apprentice! Keep up the good work. You are becoming a Jedi Master of the Leftist Freak Condition like me. It is a disease, no doubt!

          Have a great day!

          “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  62. robert October 24, 2012

    Really, Romney has so many personalities, it’s indeed possible for him to be all over the place. The only thing that shocked me last night was the “kinder/gentler” Mitt that showed up. But, what we saw last night and in the second debate was President Obama surgically removing Romney’s feet out of his mouth from the first debate. He did it with class and style.

  63. ralphkr October 24, 2012

    I fear that President Obama has gotten up on his hind legs to bat mittens down a bit too late because A) the majority of Americans have already made up their minds B) foreign policy is of low importance to those who do not have family in the military C) Small audience for the debate because the much more important programs (to Americans) opposite the debate. Shucks, I am coming to the conclusion that “Real Wives” & “Survivor” is more important to my fellow Americans than the coming election which can very possibly spell the difference between our survival as we are and becoming another Mexico or North Korea if the Fascist Republicans take control.

  64. Greg October 24, 2012


  65. ObozoMustGo October 24, 2012


    Here is more proof. Emails from Libya to the White House during the terrorist attack on the Consulate have come out. It is proof that Obozo knew it was a terrorist attack within 2 hours that it started. OBOZO LIED TO THE WORLD ABOUT THE STUPID VIDEO.

    Here is a link to the actual emails obtained from the White House during the attacks. Replace the word “dot” with a period when you paste it into your address bar.

    theblaze dot com/stories/emails-white-house-informed-within-two-hours-of-benghazi-attack-that-radical-islamic-group-claimed-responsibility/


    WAKE UP you leftist freaks!

    Have a nice day!

    “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

  66. Pat October 24, 2012

    What a great reply from Obama regarding the fact we don’t have as many battleships as we did in WWI. Poor Romney didn’t have a comeback for that, because he didn’t have a chance to practice a retort in front of a mirror.

  67. Cairndance October 24, 2012

    Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent, her neighbors didn’t know what she did until she was outted by Rove/Chaney and the rest! You are an idiot if you think that was general knowledge!

    Issa has spent the past 2 years trying to bring down this President. He released those names and now hundreds have been outted., and are in danger!

    In both cases there should be charges of treason!

    If Issa is removed maybe we could get a jobs program passed, get some roads and bridges repaired, and then someone could look into Republican mischief.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.